Court Opinion

ID: 9769232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:40:39.454918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:58.621371
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S motion for rehearing
McDonald, judge.
Appellant reurges the contention that his arrest and the search of his automobile without a warrant was illegal and insists that we were in error in holding that consent was shown to have been given for the search.
Appellant also points out that the fire clay taken from the trouser cuff of his companion was not obtained in the search of the automobile but was obtained later after appellant and his companions had been taken to Silverton and were being detained under what appellant insists was an illegal arrest.
Under the holdings of this Court, appellant is in no position to complain of the search of his companion, as this is a right which is vested only in the companion. Hatfield v. State, 161 Texas Cr. Rep. 362, 276 S.W. 2d 829 and Tunnell v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 358, 327 S.W. 2d 590.
We have again reviewed the record and remain convinced that consent was shown to have been given to the search of the automobile and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.