Opinion ID: 1930879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: whether the trial court erred by overruling, in part, king's motion to suppress.

Text: ś 77. Here, King argues that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence seized after illegal search and seizure. However, King does not bother to enlighten us as to what certain evidence the trial court should have suppressed. The appellant, King, bears the burden of showing some reversible error by the trial court. The failure to do so constitutes a waiver. Branch v. State, 347 So.2d at 958. ś 78. Procedural bar notwithstanding, King argues that, although the initial search warrant was proper, the officers exceeded the scope of that warrant by searching areas and seizing items not specifically included on the warrant. He cites various cases and laws forbidding such a general search. At trial, King unsuccessfully sought to suppress the second search warrant. He argues here that [t]his continued rummaging by the State should have been suppressed. See United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir.2001). ś 79. King also argues that even the State admitted that nothing was added to the underlying facts and circumstances for the second alleged search warrant. However, contrary to King's assertions, the record shows that the second search warrant was undergirded by information additional to that upon which the first warrant was based. The trial court made a specific finding of this fact in its ruling. ś 80. This assignment is without merit.