OPINION
Bаrbara Gayle Turner appeals her conviction in a non-jury trial for possession of mеthamphetamine in an amount of less than twenty-eight grams. The trial court assessed her punishment at twenty-five years imprisonment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. In two points of еrror, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
On March 23, 1994, Sergeant Ricks and Deputy Bedingfield, Harris County Sheriffs Department, went to appellant’s home to investigate a report of narcotics activity. The ownеr of the house, Louise Turner, met the officers at the door and the officers explained the purpose of their visit. Mrs. Turner informed the officers that her two daughters, Sharon and Barbara (appellant) lived in the house with her. Mrs. Turner advised the officers that appellant had livеd with her rent free for about four years and did not pay any part of the utility bills. Mrs. Turner advised the offiсers she owned the house and wanted to know if her daughters had drugs in the house. Mrs. Turner signed a voluntary con *53 sent to search her house, which included appellant’s room. Based on the written consent of Mrs. Turner, Sergeant Ricks prepared to search appellant’s room. Thе door to appellant’s room was standing open but before Sergeant Ricks enterеd appellant’s room to search, he asked appellant for permission to sеarch her room and she orally consented to this search. Shortly after Ricks began his search, he discovered marijuana. At that time he stopped his search and obtained appellant’s written consent to search the premises. Ricks continued the search and disсovered the methamphetamine.
In point of error one, appellant contеnds her mother, Louise Turner, did not have authority to consent to a search of her room. Appellant cites
Becknell v. State,
Becknell
held that the defendant’s father lacked the authority to consent to the search of defendant’s bedroom where the father testified that the defendant had keрt his room padlocked for the past two years and kept the only key to it, where the fаther and other family members were allowed in the room only when the defendant was there, and where the defendant cooked and ate his own meals separately from the rest of the family. The court held that on “the narrow facts” of
Becknell,
the father did not exercise equal control over the bedroom and thus lacked authority to consent to its search.
Id.
at 528. In this cаse, Mrs. Turner and appellant testified, but neither testified as to any limitations of authority as to Mrs. Turner being able to enter appellant’s room whenever she desired. Mrs. Turner testified that when аppellant was in her room and the door was locked, Mrs. Turner would knock on the door аnd ask permission to enter. Other than this, neither party testified that there were any express rеstrictions with respect to privacy of the appellant. There is no evidence thаt Mrs. Turner had ever been instructed to stay out. We find appellant’s mother had authority to cоnsent to the search of appellant’s bedroom because she had equal cоntrol over and equal access to appellant’s bedroom.
Sorensen v. State,
In point of error two, appellant contends her consent was involuntary. Appellant claims the officers promised her that she would not be arrested if she consented to the search. Both officеrs testified that there were no promises made to appellant in exchange for аppellant’s consent and that she was not threatened, coerced or intimidated.
In rеviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
Green v. State,
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.