Opinion
No. 10-05-00097-CR
Opinion delivered and filed October 12, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 66th District Court, Hill County, Texas, Trial Court No. 32932. Affirmed.
Before Cheif Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and, Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Smith appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). We affirm. In his one issue, Smith contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence. Smith contends that the officers' search exceeded the scope of his wife's consent to the search, in that she believed the search would be for controlled substances, but the officers found firearms. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991). "Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Dyar v. State, 125 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Courts "give `almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts' and review the court's application of search and seizure law de novo." Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)). Only "when a case presents a question of law based upon undisputed facts," courts "apply a de novo review." Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613, 620 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Smith's wife gave written consent to a "complete search of the premises and property," including "permission to take from [the] premises and property, any . . . materials or any other property or things which [officers] desire as evidence for criminal prosecution in the case or cases under investigation." The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Smith's motion. We overrule Smith's issue. Having overruled Smith's sole issue, we affirm.