Barocio v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · HerveyHervey, J.
KELLER, PJ., MEYERS, WOMACK, KEASLER and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, appellant pled no contest to misdemeanor possession of marijuana. We address whether probable cause and exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless police entry into appellant’s home, during which the police saw the marijuana in plain view.
The evidence from the suppression hearing shows that two sheriffs deputies (Wyatt and Kirsch) had probable cause to suspect a possible, ongoing burglary of appellant’s home. See Barocio v. State, 117 S.W.3d 19, 21-22…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Estrada v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- State v. SteelmanCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Barocio v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
4Cited by15 opinions
- Parker v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
- Rothstein v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
- Grimaldo v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2006
- Adam Grimaldo v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2006
- Barocio v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.