Court Opinion

ID: 9765041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:48:48.106404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:53.840421
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, Martinez argues that there is no evidence that the cocaine was seized in the storage room where the officer saw it. Martinez correctly notes that the seizing officer did not testify and the flowered bag was not introduced as evidence. However, Allen (the undercover officer) testified without contradiction. He described the bag, cocaine, and the blue wrapping covering the cocaine; said that the bag was left in the storage room; told how quickly he gave the “bust signal” after he and Martinez left the storage room; and how quickly the raiding officers secured the area. Mike Sanders, a DEA agent and member of the raiding party, stated without dispute that he saw the brick-type substance in a blue wrapping in a bag in the storage room after everyone had been placed under arrest, although he could not remember what the bag looked like. Paul Powell, an officer with the Houston police department, testified without dispute that he saw Officer Bobby Hebert, who had accompanied Powell on the raid, proceed directly to the storage room and recover a brick-like object wrapped in blue plastic-type paper, exactly as Allen had described the brick of cocaine left in the storage room. Allen also testified that immediately after the raid he saw Hebert with the blue package after Hebert retrieved it.
This undisputed testimony was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that the *79blue-wrapped package containing cocaine that was shown to Men and left in the storage room in the flowered bag was the same blue-wrapped package recovered by Officer Hebert, as witnessed by the above-named officers. The flowered bag may have been left in the storage room or lost, but the testimony clearly shows that the cocaine was seized where it was left.
Martinez also argues that there is testimony that Pedro owned the auto sales division and that he, Maximo, owned the mechanic’s work area. The following excerpts from Ala-barran’s testimony are the only parts of her testimony dealing with ownership of the premises:
Q. And do you know who owns Peter G’s Auto Sales?
A. No, because I never get involved in who is the owner. Probably he [Pedro], I don’t know.
[[Image here]]
Q. June 4, 1991, the day that you were arrested, was Max working at Peter G’s Auto Sales on Reveille?
A. Yes.
Q. Max didn’t own this place then, did he?
A. No, sir.
Q. He was just working out of here until he could get his own shop; isn’t that correct?
MS. PARSONS: Objection, leading.
MR. LAYINE: This is cross examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (Mr. Lavine) Max was working out of here until he had a place of his own; isn’t that correct?
A. Exactly.
Q. This storage room didn’t belong to Max, did it?
A. No, sir.
This testimony falls far short of proving that Martinez had an ownership interest in the premises.
For the reasons stated, the motion for rehearing is overruled.