From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Carter v. State
Texas Court of Appeals
2010 WL 3928492 (2010)
Facts
Police observed Stephanie Falcon soliciting a car ride in an area known for prostitution. After following Falcon to her nearby motel room, police looked through a gap in Falcon’s curtains and observed a man sitting at a table, holding a razor blade in one hand and a large rock substance in his other hand. Police later determined that the man was Quincy Carter (defendant). Police learned that Falcon alone rented the motel room, and police obtained Falcon’s written consent to search the room. During the search, police found crack cocaine on the table where Carter sat, a small bag of marijuana near the table, and a large bag of crack cocaine inside the toilet tank. Police noticed only women’s clothes and personal effects during the search. Carter was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver it. During the hearing on Carter’s motion to suppress items seized during the motel-room search, Carter testified that he and his friend were visiting Carter’s girlfriend, Falcon, and that Carter had never been to the room before. The trial court denied Carter’s motion to suppress, finding that Carter did not have standing to challenge the search of Falcon’s motel room, and Carter pleaded guilty to a lesser drug offense. Carter appealed the denial of his suppression motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keyes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
