Demaret v. State

• Decision Date: 19 January 2023
• Docket Number: 12-22-00065-CR
• Parties: SARAH MICHELLE DEMARET APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

SARAH MICHELLE DEMARET APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

No. 12-22-00065-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

January 19, 2023

s DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 114-0797-20)

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES T. WORTHEN, CHIEF JUSTICE

Sarah Michelle Demaret appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. In her sole issue, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled her motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was indicted for the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance under penalty group two in an amount less than one gram.^[1] Pursuant to a statute, the trial court also made a special finding that, at the State's request, Appellant's state jail felony offense would be prosecuted as a Class A misdemeanor.^[2]

Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence. Lindale Police Department Sergeant Carlos Flores testified at the hearing. He explained that he responded to a call at a hotel in Lindale on June 22, 2019. The occupant in Room 321 reported smelling an odor of marijuana. Sergeant Flores stated that when he arrived, he and the other responding officers detected the odor of marijuana in the elevator and the hallway. One of Room 321's occupants stated that she believed the odor emanated from Room 311 because the odor became stronger as they walked

1

towards that room and a towel was stuffed in the gap between the floor and the door. Sergeant Flores unsuccessfully attempted several times to contact the occupants of Room 311 by knocking on the door and covering the peephole. While standing at the door, Sergeant Flores observed the occupants of the room remove the towel from the floor and subsequently replace it, which indicated to Sergeant Flores that the room was occupied and that they were attempting to conceal the marijuana odor.

Sergeant Flores left two officers at the door and went to the front desk to retrieve the hotel manager. The manager knocked on the door as well, and after his efforts were unsuccessful, he told the occupants that he would retrieve a key card for the room. An occupant of Room 311 finally opened the door. The female occupant opened the door just enough where she could "poke her head out." Sergeant Flores smelled an even stronger odor of marijuana emanating from the room when she opened the door. He believed that there was a possibility that the occupants were attempting to dispose of any evidence linking them to the drugs. He indicated to the occupant that he was going to enter the room, and she stepped aside and fully opened the door.

The occupant stated that Appellant, who is her cousin, smoked the marijuana and would return to the room shortly thereafter. Appellant arrived at the room and immediately admitted that the marijuana belonged to her. When asked by Sergeant Flores whether there was any more marijuana, Appellant replied that she had "under two ounces" in her purse, which was located "within her wingspan." Sergeant Flores indicated that the purse was in an area of Appellant's immediate control because she had just produced her driver's license from the purse.

The officers placed Appellant under arrest. As Sergeant Flores initiated his search of the purse incident to arrest, Appellant told him about a small baggie containing a white powdery substance that she identified as cocaine. During his search, Sergeant Flores discovered marijuana, cocaine, and Adderall prescribed to a third party. The latter substance serves as the basis for this prosecution.

After the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion and issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant thereafter entered a plea of "guilty" to the charge. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for eight months. This appeal followed.

2

Motion to Suppress

In her sole issue, Appellant challenges the...