MICHAEL PLUMMER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Victoria County

NUMBER 13-05-326-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MICHAEL PLUMMER, Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Michael Plummer, was found guilty by a jury of possession of a controlled substance, marihuana, and the jury sentenced him to ninety days' confinement, suspended for one year, and assessed a fine of $1,000. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.121(b) (Vernon 2003). By five issues, he now appeals his conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

 

I. Background

On or about May 7, 2004, Plummer was stopped for a traffic violation. During the traffic stop, Trooper Don Plunkett asked Plummer for consent to search the vehicle. Plummer consented. Trooper Plunkett found three partially smoked marihuana cigarettes in the vehicle. Plummer was then asked if there was any other marihuana in the car. Plummer answered no. Trooper Plunkett went back into the vehicle and found more marihuana.

A class B misdemeanor complaint was issued and Plummer was charged with possession of marihuana of two ounces or less. The case was later dismissed on August 25, 2004, after the District Attorney's office filed a motion to dismiss indicating that no probable cause to search existed.

On or about December 21, 2004, the District Attorney's office re-filed the charge. Plummer filed a motion to suppress evidence contending the search was illegal. The motion was heard and denied on April 19, 2005. After a trial by jury, appellant was convicted of the offense. This appeal ensued.

II. Issues

Plummer presents five issues for review in this appeal contending the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to set aside, (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence, (3) allowing an invalid capias warrant, (4) denying protection under the double jeopardy clause, and (5) not dismissing the case based on the prosecution not providing discovery and inspection of evidence.

 

III. Analysis

We note that appellant has failed to cite to either appropriate legal authority and to appropriate portions of the record to support his challenges. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Accordingly, appellant has waived his issues on appeal. We overrule appellant's five issues. See id. (1)

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

_______________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

 

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Castillo.

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 3rd day of August, 2006.

1. We further note that the reporter's record was not filed in this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3.