*1 565 granted, rehearing affirmance the Appellant’s for is motion cause remanded. judgment is reversed and the set and the is aside Elmer Edward Hudson v. State 34,794. 31,
No. 1962 October Inoin, Roberts, Dallas, Ivan appellant. Fowler for Henry Wade, Dallas, Attorney, Criminal District and Leon Douglas, Attorney, Austin, State’s for the state.
BELCHER, Judge. Upon plea guilty a of not jury, before court the without a the illegal appellant possession was convicted of the amphetamine; of punishment, the a fine of $100. Wages
Officer appellant stag- testified that he observed the gering as along adjoining he walked a public street, sidewalk a away and from six ten appellant to feet he “wait”; called for the to that no odor appellant, of alcohol detected was on the ap- but the pellant’s speech incoherent, hopped was up”. Upon “and he was search, Wages a Officer pills testified that he found 27 ain con- right pants pocket appellant tainer in the half that of the and about one- pants pocket. his number in left analysis A chemist an by testified that made pills him of the they amphetamine. revealed that contained appellant, testifying The while behalf, in his own admitted pills pants pocket that the were in his at the question time in possession in days, and had been his for about three but that he pills amphetamine. had no idea that the contained 566 illegal his arrest and is that was
Appellant’s contention sole person property of the his and the seizure the of therefore search *2 error. into evidence was its admission and necessary appraise appellant’s It not to contention because is complain appellant position of state’s introduc- is in a to the not appellant possession pills ad- the tion of evidence of his of when testifying pills. possession that Salinas mitted while he had of the State, 388; State, Rep. 619, Rao v. 159 266 S.W. 2d v. Texas Cr. 426; State, 416, Rep. v. Texas 2d MacKenna 160 Cr. 271 S.W. 623, 657; State, Rep. 2d v. 165 301 Cortez 164 Texas Cr. S.W. 446, 2d, 713; 320, Sec. Rep. 2d 5 Texas Jur. Cr. 306 S.W. Texas pp. 707-708. judgment
The is affirmed. by
Opinion approved the Court.
CONCURRING OPINION Judge. MORRISON, the
I concur the this conviction because offi- in affirmance of appellant time he was of the cer testified that at the he searched opinion appellant public place. that “drunk” in a author- was This the thereto. ized arrest and the search incident
Bert Meron Robertson v. State 34,855. 31, 1962
No. October Westbrooks, Falls, & appellant. Schenk for Wichita