From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 6, 2019
No. 05-18-00640-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2019)

Opinion

No. 05-18-00640-CR

06-06-2019

QUINCY NATHANIEL JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F16-45744-Y

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant's May 23, 2019 motion to abate the appeal for findings of fact and May 28, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief. We GRANT appellant's motions.

On February 19, 2018, the trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion to suppress his statement made in a recorded interview with Richardson Police Detective Jules Farmer. After hearing testimony from Farmer and viewing the interview, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court requested both sides present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record, however, does not contain any findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the trial court's ruling.

When the trial court makes a determination regarding the voluntariness of an accused's statement, the trial court is required to enter an order stating its conclusion and setting forth the findings of fact upon which the conclusion is based. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 6; Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). When the record on appeal does not contain the proper findings, the court of appeals must abate the appeal to allow the trial court to make the proper findings. See Vasquez, 411 S.W.3d at 920, n. 13 (quoting Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)).

In this case, the Honorable Stephanie Fargo, the trial court judge who presided over the hearing on the motion to suppress, is no longer on the bench. The current presiding trial court judge may not review the record of the previous trial court judge's determination and file findings on that record. See Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Instead, the current presiding trial court judge must conduct a de novo hearing on the suppression issue, make a ruling, and file a written order with findings. Id.

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a de novo hearing on appellant's motion to suppress his statement, filed on February 16, 2018, and prepare a written order detailing the trial court's conclusion and setting forth the findings of fact upon which the conclusion is based. We further ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental clerk's record containing a copy of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to conduct the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress. The appeal will be reinstated when the supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's order and findings is received or at such other time as the Court deems appropriate.

Upon reinstatement of the appeal, the Court will set a new date for appellant to file his brief.

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order by electronic transmission to the Honorable Chika Anyiam, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; and to counsel for the parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE


Summaries of

Jones v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Jun 6, 2019
No. 05-18-00640-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2019)
Case details for

Jones v. State

Case Details

Full title:QUINCY NATHANIEL JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Jun 6, 2019

Citations

No. 05-18-00640-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2019)