Freeman v. State

Full title: ANDREW LEE FREEMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Aug 3, 2004

No. 14-03-00711-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2004)

Opinion

No. 14-03-00711-CR

Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 9th District Court, Waller County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 02-10-11,371. Affirmed.

Panel consists of Justices YATES, ANDERSON, and HUDSON.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN S. ANDERSON, Justice.

Following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, appellant Andrew Freeman pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, weighing four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), .115(d) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004). The trial court sentenced appellant to thirty years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division.¹ We affirm.

1 Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §§ 12.33(a), .42(d) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2002, after receiving information from a confidential informant and conducting a follow-up investigation, police obtained and executed a warrant to search a residence at an unspecified address, identified by location and description of the premises. The police found appellant at the residence; they also found methamphetamine, marijuana, and a drug lab located in a shed behind the house. Appellant was indicted for possession of a controlled substance and subsequently filed a motion to suppress, challenging the search warrant on multiple grounds. Following a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied appellant's motion.

DISCUSSION

In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, which was seized pursuant to a search warrant.² He faults the warrant and the supporting affidavit on a variety of grounds. Neither the warrant nor the affidavit are part of the appellate record.³ It is appellant's responsibility to ensure the search warrant and affidavit are included in the record on appeal. De La Garza v. State, 762 S.W.2d 899, 903 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd); see also Rivera v. State, 730 S.W.2d 824, 825 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd) (stating same and holding, because appellant failed to have the search warrant and affidavit introduced into evidence, he waived any challenge on appeal to sufficiency of the warrant). Because appellant failed to include the search warrant or the affidavit in the record on appeal, nothing is preserved for review. De La Garza, 762 S.W.2d at 903.

CONCLUSION

We overrule appellant's single point of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.