TX7: Trial court’s initially misstating burden of proof was on def was corrected in the ultimate findings

The trial court first stated that the burden on consent was on the defendant, but the ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law concluded that the state proved it by sufficient evidence. This corrected the previous mistake, and the evidence supports the conclusion. Hunter v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6818 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Aug. 25, 2020).

After defendant’s arrest, the officer went back up to the car and shined his flashlight in it to see if anyone else was in it, and drugs were in plain view. Boler v. State, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 478 (Aug. 25, 2020).*

Defendant was arrested on probable cause of a drug offense, not a traffic violation, and the search incident of his car was lawful under Gant or the automobile exception. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. United States v. Casanova, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153912 (N.D. Fla. July 24, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.