Reginald Wayne aka Reginald Wayne Jackson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 178th District Court of Harris County

Affirmedand Memorandum Opinion filed March 6, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00324-CR

____________

REGINALD WAYNE a/k/a REGINALD WAYNE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 864,984

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Reginald Wayne Jackson, plead guilty to possession of at least four hundred grams of cocaine with intent to deliver same. In accordance with appellant=s plea bargain, the trial court assessed his punishment at 15 years=imprisonment. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.

On January 3, 2001, Houston Police Officers Carlos Lerma and Scott Fuller conducted surveillance on an alleged narcotics house. During their observations, appellant and another man drove up in a car and entered the back door of the house. Minutes later, appellant and the man exited the house and headed toward the car. Appellant then knelt down and started Adigging@ in the area of the passenger floorboard. He then pulled out a piece of plywood from the floorboard and took several white circular chunks in a plastic bag, which police believed to be cocaine, and placed them inside the floorboard. Appellant replaced the plywood and put his jacket in the trunk.

Appellant and the man drove off in a northbound direction. As the officers followed the men, appellant made two turns without first making a proper turn signal. The officers then called for a nearby marked police car to pull the men over. After pulling them over, Officer Lerma and Officer Fuller approached the vehicle, which had a strong odor of cocaine coming from the floorboard. Officer Fuller pulled back the floor mat and found over four hundred grams of what police later identified as cocaine.

A grand jury indicted appellant with intentionally and knowingly possessing, with intent to deliver, at least four hundred grams of a controlled substance. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by police at his arrest, which the trial court denied and from which this appeal ensued.

Appellant concedes the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him but not probable cause to search the vehicle. The State argues, however, that appellant has no standing to complain of the search because he failed to put on any evidence that he had a protected privacy interest in the vehicle.

When a defendant puts the legality of a search at issue, he bears the burden of proving that his own privacy rights were violated. Flores v. State, 871 S.W.2d 714, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This burden is met by showing (a) his conduct exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy and (b) his actual expectation of privacy is recognized by society as objectively reasonable. Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If no evidence shows the accused had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the car or any interest or right to use the car, he does not have standing to contest the search of the car. Flores, 871 S.W.2d at 720.

Appellant failed to present any evidence showing that he had any interest in or right to use the car. Because appellant failed to affirmatively show he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, appellant does not have standing to contest the search and seizure. See Id. Accordingly, appellant=s issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 6, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish CTex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).