FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT Court OF Denton COUNTY
A jury convicted the appellant of the possession of at least four grams of methamphetamine but less than 200 grams, with the intent to deliver. The trial court sentenced him to forty years’ confinement. Appellant stated in his brief that seizure of the cell phone was not the crucial element of his complaint, but  he argued that the search of the cell phone required a warrant.  The appellate court found that although the initial seizure of the cell phone was not pursuant to a warrant, the officers had a warrant before they searched the cell phone, and that merely viewing the screensaver did not constitute a search. Further, the appellant's motion to suppress after the State had rested was not timely, and appellant had failed to preserve his complaint regarding the admission of the contents from the laptop bag and the glasses case. Also, the court noted that in the context of the entire case against the appellant, the erroneous admission of the hearsay text messages from the cell phone and their characterization as “drug messages” did not have a substantial or injurious effect on the jury's verdict and did not affect his substantial rights, and disregarded the error. Finally, the court concluded that the sufficient evidence did support the conclusion that the sixteen grams of methamphetamine found in the glasses case belonged to the appellant. The record showed that the individual provided the appellant the glasses case knowing that he would use it to house his methamphetamine. Thus, the court held that the evidence sufficiently linked the appellant to the sixteen grams of methamphetamine in the glasses case. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.