Ex parte Flores
| Decision Date | 25 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42900,42900 |
| Citation | 452 S.W.2d 443 |
| Parties | Ex parte Fred FLORES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Garza, Garza & Garza, Corpus Christi, for petitioner.
William B. Mobley, Jr., Dist. Atty., Luther E. Jones, Jr., and Thomas D. McDowell, Asst. Dist. Attys., Corpus Christi, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which Hon. Joe J. Alsup, acting in the capacity of a Special Judge of the court in which the petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin, which conviction was affirmed by this court in Flores v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 135, concluded that the evidence essential to sustain the conviction was illegally obtained and the petitioner is unlawfully confined and deprived of his liberty by reason of the fact that the search warrant is defective in that it failed to set out the city or town in which the premises searched were located.
The affidavit referred to and made a part of the search warrant described the type of building to be searched as 'certain structures located in Nueces County, Texas, described as Fred's R C Paint & Body Shop on the west side of Josephine Street in the 600 block directly behind 1501 Leopard Street and premises behind shop and being the building, house or place of Fred Flores.'
The evidence at the trial was that Fred Flores had operated the R C Paint and Body Shop in the 600 block of Josephine Street in Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, for eight or nine years.
Occupancy and ownership of the premises stated in the affidavit for issuance of a search warrant may be looked to in aid of the description of the property to be searched. Gaines v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 279 S.W.2d 96, 281 S.W.2d 94; Crumpton v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 178 S.W.2d 273; Wood v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 243 S.W.2d 31; Jamison v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 428, 277 S.W.2d 725.
The question of the sufficiency of the description of the premises in the affidavit or search warrant was not raised at the trial or on appeal. There is nothing in the records before us to show or suggest that premises such as described in the affidavit for issuance of the search warrant may be found in Nueces County other than in the City of Corpus Christi.
All that is required is that the affidavit or search warrant describe the premises to be searched with sufficient definiteness to enable the officer executing the warrant to locate the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phenix v. State, 44847
...This would be sufficient to make the description of the place to be searched a part of the warrant itself. Ex parte Flores, 452 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gaines v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 279 S.W.2d 96 (1955). Further, appellant's argument that 'it is undisputed that prior to the hear......
-
Smith v. State
...Maxon v. State, 507 S.W.2d 234, 235 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Smith v. State, 478 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Ex parte Flores, 452 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Rhodes v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. 553, 116 S.W.2d 395, 396 (1938). Several Court of Criminal Appeals cases have applied th......
-
People v. Fragoso
...confusion. We have noted the different rule used in Illinois, and indeed Helton has not been followed in Texas either. Ex parte Flores (Tex.Crim.App.1970), 452 S.W.2d 443; see Johnson v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1971), 469 S.W.2d The courts of some jurisdictions have also looked to the realities......
-
82 Hawai'i 162, State v. Matsunaga
...267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925), and "distinguish it from other places in the community." Ex parte Flores, 452 S.W.2d 443, 444 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). Where a search warrant is directed at a multiple-dwelling or multiple-office building, the warrant will generally be ......