Gonzales v. State, 39873

Decision Date16 November 1966
Docket NumberNo. 39873,39873
Citation410 S.W.2d 435
PartiesAdiel F. GONZALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

John J. Browne, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Erwin G. Ernst, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is possession of heroin with two non-capital felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.

In order to properly appraise appellant's grounds of error presented in his brief, we will briefly summarize the facts. Narcotic police officers armed with a search warrant appeared at appellant's apartment, announced their identity and purpose, and when the occupants of the apartment 'panicked' and began to run around inside the apartment, entry was forced. As they entered appellant told a woman occupant to pick up the heroin from the table. She ran from the bathroom, picked up a cellophane package from the table and ran toward the back door where she was intercepted by other officers who were entering through that door. When they demanded to know if she had anything, she reached in the pocket of her blouse or pajama top and handed the cellophane package to one of the officers. At this juncture appellant spoke to the officers and stated 'that the heroin was his and that his wife did not know what she picked up and nobody else in the house knew what was in the package.'

The chain of custody was proven as adequately as was done in Ray v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 343 S.W.2d 259, and we find the same sufficient. The capsules contained in the cellophane package were shown to contain heroin.

Appellant did not testify in his own behalf.

After the jury found appellant guilty of the primary offense, he elected to have the Court set the punishment. Appellant's identity and the successiveness of the prior convictions were established by the testimony of J. C. Roberts in person and by a fingerprint expert and by careful questioning by the trial judge.

We shall discuss the contentions advanced by appellant. He first alleges that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit is identical, except for names, date and addresses, to the affidavit set forth in our opinion in Acosta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 434. Appellant contends that we were in error in Acosta and cites as authority Riggan v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 152, 86 S.Ct. 1378, 16 L.Ed.2d 431. The affidavit is set forth in haec verba in Riggan v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E.2d 298, and is as follows:

'The material facts constituting probable cause for issuance of the warrant. $5r$ Personal observation of the premises and information from sources believed by the police department to be reliable. $5r

A comparison of the affidavit in Acosta, which will not be again set forth in this opinion, with the Riggan affidavit demonstrates that the Acosta affidavit clearly states probable cause, while there is room for a difference of opinion as to the sufficiency of the Riggan affidavit.

Appellant also relies on the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, D.C.Circuit in Perry v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 336 F.2d 748. It would appear from the more recent case of United States v. Freeman, 358 F.2d 459, from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that there is a conflict among the circuits, and we adhere to our holding in Acosta until the Supreme Court of the United States settles the conflict.

In order to properly discuss appellant's next contention it is necessary to note that while testifying concerning their activities prior to making application for the search warrant the officers stated that they had kept appellant's apartment under surveillance for a period of two and one-half hours and that during such time five known narcotic users entered appellant's apartment, stayed a few minutes and left. In his brief appellant says, 'In this point under discussion, we are confining our argument and authorities to the rules of evidence which are concerned with the proof of extraneous crimes by the defendant or others.'

The State takes the position, and we agree, that such evidence does not constitute proof of extraneous crimes. This Court has held in Salas v. State, 365 S.W.2d 174, in compliance with the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Robinson v. State of California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758, that narcotic addiction is not in itself a crime.

Appellant next contends that one of the prior convictions alleged for enhancement was void. We do not agree and adhere to our holding in Ex parte Wingfield, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 112, 282 S.W.2d 219, and the recent opinion in Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d 464.

He next contends that the proper sequence of conviction, release and reconviction was not proven. It was developed from the testimony of J. C. Roberts that appellant was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Phenix v. State, 44847
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 19, 1972
    ...to show that the marihuana was being possessed for the purpose of sale and therefore had probative value. See Gonzales v. State, 410 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1966); Collier v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 321 S.W.2d 584 (1959); and Hemmeline v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 583, 310 S.W.2d 97 (1958).In h......
  • Arnott v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 28, 1973
    ...to show motive. The notes in the present case showed the motive or purpose for which the narcotics were kept. See Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 435; Collier v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 321 S.W.2d 584, and Hemmeline v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 583, 310 S.W.2d 97. Cf. Greer v. State......
  • Polanco v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 14, 1971
    ...court upheld the validity of the search warrant based upon such affidavit. Similar affidavits have been upheld in other cases. Gonzales v. State, 410 S.W.2d 435, cert. den. 387 U.S. 925; Bosley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 468; Aguilar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 444 S.W.2d 935; Brown v. St......
  • White v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 9, 1969
    ...shall preclude the admissibility * * * of any statement that is the res gestae of the arrest or of the offense.' In Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 435 (1966), cert. denied 387 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 2044, 18 L.Ed.2d 982, this Court held that after an arrest, an oral confession with ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT