Robuck v. State (40 S.W.3d 650, 2001)

PRESTON H. DIAL, Justice (Assigned).

This case is on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Michael Ro-buck (“Robuck”) appeals the trial court’s order, deferring his adjudication for misdemeanor possession of marijuana and placing him on community supervision. Ro-buck raises five points of error directed at the trial court’s ruling on his pre-trial motion to suppress. Robuck sought to suppress the marijuana seized from a drawer in the bedroom of his home. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment acquitting Robuck of the charges pending against him.

Procedural History of Appeal

On original submission, this court reversed the trial court’s judgment based on the application of the Helms rule and its corollary. Robuck v. State, 974 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998), vacated, 21 S.W.3d 300 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). We held, “Because Robuck entered his plea based on his understanding that he could appeal the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress, a misunderstanding shared by his attorney and the trial court, his plea was not entered voluntarily.” Id. at 289. Accordingly, we reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded'the cause to permit Robuck to replead. See id.

On June 28, 2000, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded the cause for reconsideration in light of the Court’s opinion in Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), noting that the Court had reexamined the Helms rule in Young. The parties were given an opportunity rebrief. Both parties elected to proceed based on the briefs originally filed.

Application of Young v. State

In Young v. State, the Court of Criminal appeals reconsidered the “Helms Rule” which provided that,