appeals entirely failed to address this question. On rehearing, however, the court of appeals held that there was no waiver, and the State does not contest that holding in this Court. 5 . Hubert v. State, 286 S.W.3d 484, 490-91 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (op. on reh'g). 6 . Id. at 491. 7 . State's Petition for Discretionary Review, at 3. 8 . Tex.R.App. P. 66.3(b). The appellant has claimed that the search of his bedroom violated his rights under the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and the Tex as Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the ap th Cir. 1997) (determining that the question of whether facts supported a finding of authority for Fourth Amendment purposes is “an inherently legal one”). See also United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 613, 615 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192
holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that the threshold question of whether to adopt a doctrine is reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plainerror standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third partys consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo