Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-03-01326-CR
_______________
ROY ANTHONY RAMOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1174132
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Roy Anthony Ramos appeals a conviction for marijuana possession[1] 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.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Guzman, and Murphy.[3]
Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[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).
[3] Senior Chief Justice Paul C. Murphy sitting by assignment.