Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 20, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00661-CR
EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485-2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne,1 and Smith
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress. After
the county court denied his motion to suppress, Cortez pleaded guilty to possession
of marijuana in an amount of less than two ounces. The county court found Cortez
guilty and assessed his punishment at ninety days of confinement. In his sole issue
on appeal, Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress
arguing: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support some of the county court’s
1
Justice Leslie Osborne was a member of the panel and participated in the oral argument of this appeal.
After argument, she resigned from this Court. Justice Osborne did not participate in the decision of this
case. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(b).
findings of fact; and (2) the county court erred when it concluded (a) the initial stop
and detention were reasonable, and (b) there was probable cause to support the
officer’s warrantless search of his vehicle because it was based the officer’s belief
that he smelled “illegal marijuana,” which has the same odor as “legal hemp.”
This appeal involves the same facts and similar legal arguments as Cortez v.
State, No. 05-21-00664-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem.
op.). In that appeal, Cortez challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress in the case against him for possession of methamphetamine in an amount
of less than one gram. We decide that appeal by a separate opinion also issuing
today because it arises out of a different trial court. However, that opinion addresses
all of the appellate arguments raised by Cortez in this appeal.2 For the reasons
explained in that case, we conclude the county court did not err when it denied
Cortez’s motion to suppress. Because the issues are determined by the law set forth
in our other opinion, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Cortez, No. 05-21-
00664-CR; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
2
We note that the county court adopted the district court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
–2–
We affirm the county court’s order.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
210661F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-21-00661-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485-
2020.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice
Schenck. Justice Smith participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 20, 2022
–4–