Martinez v. State, 27793

Decision Date09 November 1955
Docket NumberNo. 27793,27793
Citation162 Tex.Crim. 356,285 S.W.2d 221
PartiesJane R. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Peter S. Navarro, Jr., Walter Conway, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


The conviction is for the possession of heroin, a narcotic drug; the punishment, 5 years in the penitentiary.

Two officers obtained a search warrant authorizing the search of an apartment located at 287 Clayton Homes, in Houston, alleged to be the private residence of 'one Victor, Mexican male, and others whose names, identities and descriptions' were unknown.

Appellant alone was at the apartment when the officers arrived and inquired for Victor, stating, in answer to her inquiry, that they had a special delivery message.

Upon entering the apartment, an evenlope containing copy of the search warrant was handed to appellant, and the officers began to search the house.

Upon finding two papers containing a brown powder, which thereafter proved to be heroin, the officers asked appellant 'where the rest of the heroin was' and she said it was in a wooden box in the bedroom on a chest of drawers.

The officers proceeded to the bedroom and found the box in which was a plastic bottle containing eighteen capsules and four papers with a white powder. The powder proved to be heroin, a narcotic drug.

The manager of Clayton Homes testified that on the date in question apartment 287 was leased to appellant, and that she paid the rent monthly. There was testimony that one Victor Ramirez also lived there.

The admissibility of the evidence as to what was found in the apartment is the sole ground for reversal, the contention being that the search warrant was invalid and the search of the private residence unlawful.

Evidence was heard by the court in the absence of the jury as to the issuance of the search warrant. A part of such evidence consisted of the testimony of the magistrate who issued the warrant.

The only defect which we observe in the affidavit for issuance of the warrant, or the search warrant, is in the jurat which states that the affidavit was sworn to before the magistrate on December 13, 1955, whereas it was in fact sworn to on January 13, 1955, the date the information therein stated as showing probable cause was alleged to have been received, and the day the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Rougeau v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 23, 1987
    ...clearly a typographical error. This kind of error will not vitiate either an arrest or search warrant. Also see Martinez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 356, 285 S.W.2d 221 (1955); Tyra v. State, 496 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Moreno v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 410, 341 S.W.2d 455 Appellant's eightee......
  • Haynes v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 14, 1971 apprise the police of where they are to conduct the search. McCormick v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 331 S.W.2d 307; Martinez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 356, 285 S.W.2d 221; Rhodes v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 553, 116 S.W.2d 395. Where the warrant describes a multi -unit dwelling, the description ......
  • Somoza v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 24, 2015
    ...cause affidavit July 11, 1971, and search occurred on that date, but search warrant was dated March 11, 1971); Martinez v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 356, 285 S.W.2d 221, 222 (1955) (considering testimony of magistrate at suppression hearing that jurat of probable cause affidavit incorrectly stat......
  • Crowley v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 2019
    ...grounds, Harris v. State, 784 S.W.2d 5 (1989); Lyons v. State, 503 S.W.2d 254, 255-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Martinez v. State, 285 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955). Crowley asserts on appeal that an incorrect date on the return invalidated the entire warrant for the cellular telepho......
  • 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