Padilla filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 1999. He challenges the efficacy of the consent given because the officers were already in the house when the consent to search was secured.Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.This Court has held that a wife may consent to the search of her husband's home.
2D02-5319. In Lightfoot v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 256 S.W.2d 845, as in the case at bar, the accused had less beer and more whiskey than provided for by the prima facie evidence statute, and we held the presumption as to the whiskey supported the conviction for the possession of beer and whiskey for the purpose of sale.We find the fruits of the search admissible.Investigator Bowman of the Liquor Control Board testified that he went to the appellant's home at 4:00 p. m. on the day in question, knocked on the door and told appellant's wife that he wanted a bottle of whiskey; that she said, "Just a minute"; that the appellant came to the door and told him to wait just a few minutes, and shortly thereafter Mrs. Padilla returned and delivered him a half-pint of whiskey, for which he paid her two dollars.
A jury acquitted Davenport, but found Padilla guilty of felony murder *148 while in the commission of aggravated assault and of possessing a weapon during the commission of that crime. R. 220, 93 S.W.2d 438, and Wheeless v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R.
540, 543(4), However, he "has presented no authority that a failure to match complexions requires reversal." R. 204, 186 S.W.2d 74.Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.T.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
The grand jury indicted Padilla on November 12, 1996, and the jury found him guilty on February 6, 1997.
CODE CRIM. OPINION.
[1] The crimes occurred on September 17, 1996.
Both of the prospective purchasers drew weapons, and one of them shot and killed Price. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Art.
Decided: February 15, 2005 Kevin Wild, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. 37.071 (West Supp.
43292, 2016 Opinion No.
By five issues, Padilla asserts that: (1) the State's accomplice-witness testimony lacks corroboration by other evidence that tended to connect him to the murder offense, see TEX.
No. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.Investigator Pierce testified that he witnessed the sale and then followed Bowman into the house; that he found the appellant lying in bed in his room; that the appellant said there was no more whiskey in the house but that they could go ahead and look; and that they found the whiskey near his bed and the beer in the ice box.Appellant further complains of the refusal of the trial court to submit his requested charge on circumstantial evidence.
We affirm the trial court's order in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Alfredo Padilla, Jr., challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
A discovery deposition, however, does not satisfy Crawford's cross-examination requirement. This Court had recently, in Crimaldi v. State, 259 S.W.2d 203, and Hogan v. State, 264 S.W.2d 113, held that where the accused is shown to have more intoxicants than provided for by the prima facie evidence statute a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required. Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Silvio Andres PADILLA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. 273 S.W.2d 889 (1954) John M. PADILLA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Attention is directed to the fact that Officer Bowman was an invitee upon the premises because he had just consummated a purchase from the appellant's wife. Padilla v. State Annotate this Case. The case was docketed in this Court on July 20, 2000, and Padilla submitted his appeal for decision on September 11, 2000.Christopher Price was involved in an apparent marijuana sale in the apartment of his girlfriend's aunt when a dispute arose. Silvio Andres Padilla appeals …
38.14 (West 2005); (2) the capital punishment procedural statute is unconstitutional, see id. For...20160512166. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; 618 So.2d 165 (1993) ... We have jurisdiction. [1]Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel G. Ashburn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.Mario A. Pacella, Augusta, for appellant.1.
art.
Menu.
32. Decided: December 24, 2003 Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEPHERD, JJ.
T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant. Decided: July 30, 2003. Smith v. State, 209 Ga.App. No. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 49A02-0404-CR-308. No.
Kristina PADILLA, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
ANN. November 24, 1954. Tarango Deforest Padilla appeals from the district court s denial of his petition for post conviction relief.
We affirm Padilla's convictions but remand this cause for new sentencing proceedings.
PADILLA v. STATE PADILLA v. STATE Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. The trial court sentenced Padilla to life for the murder and to a consecutive five-year term for the weapons offense.
Over objection, the trial court permitted the two eyewitnesses to identify Padilla.
Padilla filed a motion for new trial on February 19, 1997, and the trial court denied that motion on June 22, 1999.