Villarreal v. State, 01-94-00033-CR
| Decision Date | 08 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-94-00033-CR,01-94-00033-CR |
| Citation | 893 S.W.2d 559 |
| Parties | Charles Robert VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Herb H. Ritchie, Greg Glass, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Alan Curry, Tommy Lafon, Houston, for appellee.
Before HEDGES, COHEN and WILSON, JJ.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, appellant Charles Robert Villarreal pled guilty to the felony offenses of possession of marihuana and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court assessed punishment at eight-years confinement. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress because his arrest violated rights guaranteed by the United States and the Texas constitutions. We affirm.
On November 20, 1992, Officer Walter Redman of the Houston police department received an anonymous phone call that three specifically described Hispanic men were going to sell a large quantity of marihuana to two specifically described white men at a particular residence in Houston sometime that night. Two of the sellers were identified as "Big John" and "Benny," and the two purchasers were identified as "George" and "Michael." The informant described the sellers' vehicle and stated that a third, unnamed seller of marihuana would be its driver.
The informant told Officer Redman that the two purchasers would be inside the residence with Rick Varner, the owner of the residence, and that there were weapons inside the residence. Officer Redman then confirmed that Mr. Varner lived at that residence and that he had a criminal record.
Officer Redman drove to the residence with Officer Gary Dora of the Houston police department and found that the informant's description of the residence was accurate. The vehicles parked in front matched the description given by the informant for the supposed purchasers' and sellers' vehicles. Having confirmed the information concerning location and description of vehicles, the officers left the area. They returned later that night and found that the sellers' vehicle was gone. It is normal practice for sellers of illegal drugs to arrive at the location of the transaction, leave, and then return with the illegal drugs for the actual exchange.
After midnight, the sellers' vehicle returned to the residence, and three men matching the description given by the informant got out of the vehicle. The officers were able to identify two of these men as "Big John" and "Benny." Appellant, the unnamed individual described by the informant, was the driver of the vehicle. Appellant and his two codefendants removed two bags and a box from the vehicle. The packaging appeared consistent with wrapping used to conceal a large amount of marihuana. Officer Redman stated that, at that time of night, it would have taken two to four hours to obtain a warrant.
The officers got out of their patrol cars and approached the residence in order to investigate their suspicions. The officers identified themselves and told the three men to stop, but the men hurried into the residence. Mr. Balli (Big John) locked and blocked the front door with his body as Officer Redman identified himself and the other officer as police. Mr. Varner attempted to jump out of one of the windows at the side of the house, but he retreated when he saw the officers. The officers knocked on the door but were denied entrance. Fearing destruction of contraband and mindful of their own safety as well as the safety of individuals inside the residence, the officers broke through the door and entered the residence. The officers testified that it is common for weapons to be involved in illegal drug transactions.
Inside the residence, the officers detected a strong odor of marihuana and observed several packages of marihuana in plain view. A narcotics detection dog also made a positive alert for marihuana. Inside the residence were appellant and codefendants Balli, Covarrubia, Varner, George J. Jacob and Michael Ray Marlott.
Mr. Varner's wife arrived during the investigation, and Officer Redman obtained her written consent for a search of the residence. A search of the residence revealed several weapons, some in plain view, and more than $59,000 in cash, some of which was also in plain view. Mrs. Varner told the officers that the large amount of cash did not belong to her and her husband.
Appellant told Officer Redman that he was the owner of the vehicle he had driven to the residence. Appellant then consented to a search of the vehicle, which revealed more marihuana as well as drug paraphernalia, cocaine, and a cellular phone.
In four points of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana and cocaine because his arrest and the subsequent seizure of contraband violated his rights guaranteed by the U.S. CONST. amend. IV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9; and TEX.CODE CRIM.P.ANN. art. 14.01. (Vernon 1977 & Supp.1994).
Appellant contends that he has standing to challenge the officers' entry of the Varner residence and the attendant search and seizure of the evidence because he was an invited guest. In order to achieve standing to mount this challenge, appellant must prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661, 669 (Tex...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villarreal v. State
...subjective expectation of privacy was not one that society was prepared to recognize as reasonable. Villarreal v. State, 893 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994). We granted appellant's petition to review that decision of the court of appeals. See Tex.R.App. Proc. 200(c)(5). We n......
-
People v. Parker
...1014 (Ala.Crim.App., 1995); State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494 (Mo., 1994); State v. Harris, 609 A.2d 944 (R.I., 1992); Villarreal v. State, 893 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.App., 1994). ...
-
Barton v. The State Of Tex., 12-09-00095-CR
...was a guest in the mobile home who lacked any possessory or propriety interest in the premises. See Villareal v. State, 893 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—”Houston [1st Dist.] 1994), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant has no valid expectation of privacy in a home where he i......
-
Ex parte Moore
...spent the night, but “decline[d] to extend this expectation to the more casual visitor such as appellant.” Villarreal v. State, 893 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994). We affirmed the court of appeals's holding: “In our view, American society is not willing to sanction as o......