Daniel Glenn Parker, Jr. a/k/a Daniel G. Parker, Jr. v. The State of TexasAppeal from 355th District Court of Hood County (Memorandum Opinion )

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 02-12-00348-CR

Case Date: 05/23/2013

Plaintiff: Daniel Glenn Parker, Jr. a/k/a Daniel G. Parker, Jr.

Defendant: The State of TexasAppeal from 355th District Court of Hood County (Memorandum Opinion )

Preview:COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00348-CR

DANIEL GLENN PARKER JR. A/K/A DANIEL G. PARKER JR. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLANT

STATE

---------FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY ----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
---------Appellant Daniel Glenn Parker Jr. appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance under one gram. In his sole issue, Parker argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his custodial statement. We overrule the issue and affirm the trial court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).

1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Acting on information from a confidential informant, two investigators with the Hood County Sheriff's Office, Matthew Bales and Ray Miller, stopped Parker after he left a suspected drug house and committed two minor traffic violations. Based on the information gleaned from the confidential informant and because Parker appeared nervous, Bales asked Parker for consent to search his truck. Parker consented to the search of his truck, but no drugs were found. Bales and Miller then called for a drug dog to come sniff the truck. When the drug dog arrived, Bales saw that Parker began "playing with his feet, rubbing his . . . sock," and Bales noticed "a piece of black [electrical] tape stuffed in his shoe." Bales removed the tape from Parker's shoe and found two small baggies of methamphetamine wrapped in a piece of notebook paper. Bales arrested Parker and read Parker the required warnings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 15.17(a) (West Supp. 2012); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Parker then stated that he bought the methamphetamine in Fort Worth, that he usually buys methamphetamine in small packages because he only uses "a gram at a time," and that there was "no more" methamphetamine in his truck. Parker also stated that he needed "rehab" because of his drug problem and that he did not sell methamphetamine to others. The trial court found Parker guilty of possession of a controlled substance under one gram and sentenced him to eighteen years' confinement. Parker

2

appeals and argues that the trial court erred in admitting the video recording 2 of his post-warning, custodial statements, over his repeated objections, because they were not made in compliance with article 38.22. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22,

Download 02-12-00348-cr.pdf