Ex parte Storm, 2-00-097-CR

• Citation: 49 S.W.3d 401
• Decision Date: 07 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 2-00-097-CR,2-00-097-CR
• Parties: (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000) EX PARTE JEFFREY LANCE STORM
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

Page 401

49 S.W.3d 401 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000) EX PARTE JEFFREY LANCE STORM No. 2-00-097-CR Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. December 7, 2000

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

Before DAY, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ.

OPINION

GARDNER, JUSTICE

I. Introduction

The trial court denied Appellant's pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that the State was barred by double jeopardy from prosecuting him for possession of diazepam, a controlled substance, because evidence regarding Appellant's possession of diazepam was admitted at his previous trial for possession of amphetamine. We affirm.

II. Factual Background

On April 27, 1999, Appellant was tried and convicted for the felony offense of

Page 402

possession of amphetamine, a controlled substance. The indictment solely charged Appellant with illegally possessing amphetamine on August 9, 1998. Evidence at that trial showed that, pursuant to a traffic stop, a plastic baggie was seized, which contained 16.5 diazepam pills and a brownish, rock-like substance later determined to be amphetamine. The State introduced evidence showing that, at the same time Appellant possessed the amphetamine, he also possessed diazepam.

On October 20, 1999, Appellant was charged by information and complaint with the misdemeanor offense of possession of diazepam. Appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged the State was barred by federal and state constitutional principles of double jeopardy from prosecuting him for possession of diazepam because evidence of his possession of the diazepam was admitted at his previous trial for possession of amphetamine without any reservation or limiting instruction. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's application.

III. Discussion

We have jurisdiction to review the decision of the trial court in denying habeas corpus relief. Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; Ex parte Dixon, 964 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref'd). We review the record as it existed before the trial court at the habeas hearing to determine whether the court erred in failing to grant relief. Ex parte Dixon, 964 S.W.2d at 722 (citing Goss v. State, 944 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.)). In reviewing the decision of the habeas court, we review the findings in the light most favorable to the ruling and uphold the decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Ex...