Ramos v. State

Full title: ROY ANTHONY RAMOS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

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

Date published: Jul 19, 2005

No. 14-03-01326-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 19, 2005)

Opinion

No. 14-03-01326-CR

Memorandum Opinion Filed July 19, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1174132. Affirmed.

Panel consists of Justices EDELMAN, GUZMAN, and MURPHY.³

3 Senior Chief Justice Paul C. Murphy sitting by assignment.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice.

Roy Anthony Ramos appeals a conviction for marijuana possession¹ on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained in an unlawful search of his apartment conducted before appellant had consented to any search or been arrested. However, because there was evidence that the marijuana was in plain view of the officers after appellant consented to their entry into his apartment, it was within the trial court's discretion to deny the motion to suppress.² Accordingly, appellant's sole issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1 Appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court assessed punishment at 15 days confinement.

2 In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we afford almost total deference to any determination of historical facts based on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of witnesses. Masterson v. State, 155 S.W.3d 167, 170 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Under the plain view doctrine, evidence is not illegally obtained by police officers if: (1) they have a right to be where they are when they see it: and (2) it is immediately apparent that there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity. Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).