Case Name: Joseph Earl ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1982-05-21
Citations: 645 P.2d 1028
Docket Number: No. F-81-301
Parties: Joseph Earl ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Judges: CORNISH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 645
Pages: 1028–1030

Head Matter:
Joseph Earl ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-81-301.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
May 21, 1982.
Ed McConnel, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Crim. Appellate Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
BUSSEY, Judge:
The appellant, Joseph Earl Adams, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distribute, in Logan County District Court, Case No. CRF-79-140, was sentenced to two (2) years' imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00, and he appeals.
While searching a house and garage apartment pursuant to a "Consent to Search" signed by the owner, Dallas Griggs, for a missing revolver, police officers discovered, in the garage apartment where the defendant was living, a green leafy substance, which was plainly visible in jars; the material later proved to be marijuana. Deputy Donald Breshears testified that he recited the Miranda warnings to the defendant, who responded affirmatively to a query as to whether or not he understood those rights. The deputy also stated that a short time later, as the search was continuing, the defendant said, "I might as well go ahead and show it to you. You're going to find it anyway." The defendant then presented the officers with a pipe, a box of baggies, a scale and more marijuana. Deputy Henry Cotton further testified that the defendant said that four tea cans that were confiscated were his personal stash. Dallas Griggs testified that the defendant, her brother, was living in the garage apartment and that although he was not paying rent on a regular basis, he was making repairs to the premises and helped with the bills; further, he would come inside the regular house to bathe and take his meals. She stated that she was in control of all the property and had given her consent to search it.
Donald Roberts testified that he was a very good friend of the defendant, that he was currently residing at the Ouchita Correctional Facility and that all the marijuana and paraphernalia was his personal property.
In his first and second assignments of error, the defendant argues that improper rebuttal and cross-examination occurred when the prosecutor noted the defendant's silence and his failure to proclaim his innocence at the time of his arrest. The complained-of questioning took place after the defense had produced a witness, Don Roberts, who claimed that all the contraband was his. Since the record is void of any objection to the interrogatories or of a motion for a new trial, the errors have not been preserved, and have thus been waived. Boomershine v. State, 634 P.2d 1318 (Okl.Cr.1981); Runnels v. State, 562 P.2d 932 (Okl.Cr.1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 893, 98 S.Ct. 270, 54 L.Ed.2d 179.
Lastly, the defendant alleges that the "Consent to Search" signed by his sister was not valid as to the garage area, since it was not physically connected to the main residence, and he had exclusive right to the living area which was his and his alone during his tenure as a resident at that location. The defendant is not correct in his bald assertions, and has failed to cite any authority in support thereof, and this Court will not consider them. Sandefur v. State, 461 P.2d 954 (Okl.Cr.1969). We find that the sister had a sufficient relationship to the premises to give valid consent for a warrantless search, and the case of Nelson v. State, 564 P.2d 254 (Okl.Cr.1977), is dis-positive of this assignment of error. Furthermore, the defendant did not object to the search, and of his own volition personally pointed out additional contraband.
Moreover, none of the alleged errors were argued in a motion for new trial, and have not been properly preserved for appeal.
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence appealed from is AFFIRMED.
CORNISH, J., concurs.
BRETT, P. J., dissents.