In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-02-00749-CR
____________
BOBBY LEE SIMMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 906466
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bobby Lee Simms, appellant, was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine, weighing less than one gram. After appellant’s motion to suppress was denied, he entered a plea of guilty and the State recommended that appellant be sentenced, in accordance with section 12.44 of the Texas Penal Code, to 75 days in the Harris County jail. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.44 (a) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed appellant’s punishment in accordance with appellant’s plea bargain. This appeal, which was granted by the trial court, followed. In three points of error, appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress, (1) in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, (2) in violation of article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and (3) in violation of article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Background
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Sergeant Tommie L. Herndon with the Harris County Sheriff’s Department testified that he was working an extra job at the Red River Dance Hall and Saloon in North Harris County. An employee of the club approached Herndon and told him that a patron of the club observed another patron selling what he believed to be narcotics in the men’s restroom. While Herndon talked to the employee, the patron believed to be involved walked past them. Herndon and Deputy Charles A. Akins, who was also working at the club that night, approached the patron and asked that he accompany them to the security office.
In the security office, Herndon found in the patron’s wallet a plastic straw and a clear plastic bag containing some white crystal-type powder. Herndon tested the substance, and it tested positive for methamphetamine. At that point, Herndon placed the patron under arrest.
While Herndon was processing the first patron, another patron, identified as appellant, walked into the security office and asked why they had detained the first patron. Akins, who was about seven inches shorter than appellant, noticed a white, powdery substance caked under appellant’s nostril and believed it to be methamphetamine. Akins testified that the substance was caked just below appellant’s right nostril. Akins ran a warrants check on appellant, found that he had two outstanding misdemeanor warrants, and placed him under arrest. Akins then swabbed the outside of appellant’s right nostril with a Q-tip, and it returned a positive field identification for methamphetamine.
Discussion
In three points of error, appellant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion. Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Taylor v. State, 945 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a suspect has been arrested for one crime, any evidence found in a search incident to that arrest should not be suppressed. Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The record shows that appellant was arrested on two outstanding misdemeanor warrants before the officer swabbed his nose. Therefore, the swabbing of appellant’s nose was done pursuant to a lawful search incident to arrest. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
We overrule appellant’s three points of error.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Nuchia, and Keyes.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2 (b).