Edwin Cortez v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 20, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00661-CR EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485-2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne,1 and Smith Opinion by Justice Schenck Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress. After the county court denied his motion to suppress, Cortez pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in an amount of less than two ounces. The county court found Cortez guilty and assessed his punishment at ninety days of confinement. In his sole issue on appeal, Cortez appeals the county court’s order denying his motion to suppress arguing: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support some of the county court’s 1 Justice Leslie Osborne was a member of the panel and participated in the oral argument of this appeal. After argument, she resigned from this Court. Justice Osborne did not participate in the decision of this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(b). findings of fact; and (2) the county court erred when it concluded (a) the initial stop and detention were reasonable, and (b) there was probable cause to support the officer’s warrantless search of his vehicle because it was based the officer’s belief that he smelled “illegal marijuana,” which has the same odor as “legal hemp.” This appeal involves the same facts and similar legal arguments as Cortez v. State, No. 05-21-00664-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). In that appeal, Cortez challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress in the case against him for possession of methamphetamine in an amount of less than one gram. We decide that appeal by a separate opinion also issuing today because it arises out of a different trial court. However, that opinion addresses all of the appellate arguments raised by Cortez in this appeal.2 For the reasons explained in that case, we conclude the county court did not err when it denied Cortez’s motion to suppress. Because the issues are determined by the law set forth in our other opinion, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Cortez, No. 05-21- 00664-CR; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. 2 We note that the county court adopted the district court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law. –2– We affirm the county court’s order. /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 210661F.U05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT EDWIN CORTEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas No. 05-21-00661-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 005-86485- 2020. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justice Smith participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered December 20, 2022 –4–