v.
State of Texas
Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
By opinion and order dated March 6, 2001, this appeal was abated and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in regard to appellant's intent to prosecute the appeal and appellant's possible status as an indigent. The clerk of this court received, and on March 9, 2001, filed a Supplemental Clerk's Record. Contained in the Supplemental Clerk's Record were documents clearly indicating an intent to prosecute the appeal and an order of the judge of the 337th District Court of Harris County appointing counsel to represent appellant on appeal, and directing the court reporter to prepare a statement of facts.
Accordingly, our prior order of abatement and remand dated March 6, 2001, is withdrawn. The appeal is reinstated. The reporter's record is directed to be filed on or before April 4, 2001. Subsequent appellate filing times and deadlines shall be based on such due date for the reporter's record. Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Per Curiam.
Do not publish.
5 The Fifth Circuit sometimes has applied a slightly different test that includes the\ inquiry whether the government has offered the private party some form of compensation\ for the search. See United States v. Dahlstrom, 180 F.3d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1999). \ Applying that test would not lead to a different result in this case.
\'
var WPFootnote6 = ' The detective also told the court, “I told [the property manager] they didn’t have\
anything to do with our investigation, that was a civil deal.” 7 Based on the suppression hearing testimony, the trial court reasonably could have\
determined the property manager and the maintenance employee were acting within the\
scope of their duties as employees of the owner of the property when they entered the\
storage unit on that occasion. 8 The State argues alternatively that police reasonably relied on Standke’s apparent\
authority to consent to the search even if she lacked actual authority. See, e.g., Davis v.\
State, 93 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d) (based on female’s\
statements at the residence that she lived there, it was reasonable for officer to conclude\
she could consent to the search). We do not find it necessary to address this contention.