Cadoree v. State, 331 S.W.3d 514

Cadoree was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4–200 g) and sentenced to 30 years.
Officers responded to a domestic disturbance at Swinney’s home; Swinney identified Cadoree as the person she wanted removed.
Officer Ashraf conducted a room search after Swinney opened the door and allowed entry; cocaine and related items were found in Cadoree’s bedroom.
Cadoree challenged the search as violative of consent, suppression, and related legal issues.
Swinney testified she did not verbally consent to the search, while Ashraf testified consent was given; the trial court denied suppression.
Cadoree contends multiple errors, including improper jury instructions and ineffective assistance; the court of appeals affirms the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression ruling was correct	Cadoree: consent to search was involuntary.	State: consent extended to concealed areas; voluntary under totality of circumstances.	No reversible error; consent found voluntary and search valid.
Whether article 38.23(a) instruction was required	Swinney’s consent issue required 38.23(a). Cadoree lacked standing to complain.	Disputed consent; instruction appropriate.	Instruction improper burden but no reversible error; Cadoree not entitled to 38.23(a).
Whether the jury could infer voluntary consent and search findings	Consent issue created a fact question.	No genuine fact dispute; appellant verbally consented.	No error; implied finding of consent sustained.
Whether there was legal/structural insufficiency to support possession	Evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence shows Cadoree stayed in the room with cocaine; rational inference supports possession.	Legally sufficient evidence supports possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to object to 38.23 and to challenge hearsay issues.	Counsel acted reasonably; evidentiary rulings did not prejudice.	No ineffective assistance; record supports strategy and results.

Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial-court factual findings in suppression rulings)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (consent must be voluntary and not coerced)
Lalande v. State, 676 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (clear and convincing standard for voluntary consent)
Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (consent valid despite custody, without Miranda warnings)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (examines when 38.23(a) instruction is warranted)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (adopts single standard for legal sufficiency analysis)