From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blankenship v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Aug 12, 2004
No. 02-03-241-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2004)

Opinion

No. 02-03-241-CR

Delivered: August 12, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

Appeal from the 355th District Court of Hood County.

Panel A: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and McCOY, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.


In one point, appellant Thomas Edward Blankenship appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine found in appellant's possession after a traffic stop. Appellant concedes that the officer who found the drugs lawfully stopped him for a traffic violation. Appellant's sole complaint on appeal is that the traffic violation for which the officer investigated appellant was a mere pretext to investigate appellant for "some other unknown reason." Appellant acknowledges that the court of criminal appeals has rejected the pretext stop doctrine under both the federal and state constitutions, but urges this court to revisit the issue. See Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668, 674 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Because we are bound by court of criminal appeals precedent, we decline to do so. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole point and affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Blankenship v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Aug 12, 2004
No. 02-03-241-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2004)
Case details for

Blankenship v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS EDWARD BLANKENSHIP, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Aug 12, 2004

Citations

No. 02-03-241-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2004)