Nelson v. State, 60997
Decision Date | 09 December 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 60997,60997,1 |
Citation | 626 S.W.2d 535 |
Parties | Peggy Short NELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mike Aranson, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Maridell Templeton and Randy Biddle, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ROBERTS, CLINTON and McCORMICK, JJ.
The trial court found the appellant guilty of theft, a class B misdemeanor, and assessed a punishment of sixty days in jail (probated) and a fine of one hundred dollars.
The only ground of error set forth is, "The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence." This ground was not preserved for review because the motion to suppress evidence was presented to the trial court untimely, if at all.
The record contains a written "Motion to Suppress and Motion to Dismiss," which both were based on the violation of V.A.C.C.P. Article 18.16. They moved that the allegedly stolen sunglasses be suppressed because of an illegal search and seizure, and that the charge be dismissed because of a due process violation. These motions lay dormant. No pre-trial hearing was held. The sunglasses were admitted into evidence without objection, other than an objection to the chain of custody. Only after the State rested its case did the appellant "urge its motion." The court recessed to study the law. When the trial resumed, the following occurred:
The record indicates that the appellant presented, and obtained a ruling on, only her motion to dismiss-not on her motion to suppress evidence. Even if we could find that the motion to suppress had been presented at the same time, it would have been too late. Thompson v. State, 486...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cannon v. State
...time the confession was offered into evidence, it was waived. Amaya v. State, 473 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Nelson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). See also Hobson v. State, 627 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982), affirmed 644 S.W.2d 473 We find no request to re-......
-
Sanders v. State
...[14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd); Laurant v. State, 926 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); see Nelson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (concluding defendant did not timely obtain ruling on motion to suppress until after evidence admi......
-
Vierling v. State
...urged after the State has rested and the challenged evidence admitted without objection is too late to preserve error. Nelson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Sims v. State, 833 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). Noncompliance......
-
Sims v. State
..."reurged" the motion after the State rested its case-in-chief. As a result, it was untimely and preserved nothing for review. Nelson v. State, 626 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Even if the trial court had overruled appellant's motion to suppress before trial, appellant w......