Opinion
NUMBER 13-18-00260-CR
04-17-2019
AARON QUINTANILLA RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
Order Per Curiam
In an appeal from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, appellant Aaron Quintanilla Ramirez challenges the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a search warrant for narcotics in appellant's home.
Upon the timely request of the losing party in a motion to suppress, the trial court is required to "state its essential findings." State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). "Essential findings" means "findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court's application of the law to the facts." Id. (citing State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). We must abate for supplemental findings when the party has requested findings of fact, and the findings that are made by the trial court "are so incomplete that an appellate court is unable to make a legal determination." State v. Saenz, 411 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). In other words, in the absence of a specific finding of fact with respect to a dispositive issue in the case, we should remand the case to the trial court for entry of additional, specific findings of fact on that dispositive issue. See State v. Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Elias, 339 S.W.3d at 676-77. This is because an appellate court may not "presume factual findings that may be dispositive in a case when a trial court's findings are an inadequate basis upon which to make a legal conclusion and when those findings have been properly requested by a losing party." Saenz, 411 S.W.3d at 495. "This requirement assures that appellate resolution of the suppression issue 'is based on the reality of what happened [at the trial court level] rather than on [appellate] assumptions that may be entirely fictitious.'" Elias, 339 S.W.3d at 675 (quoting Cullen, 195 S.W.3d at 699).
The issue at the suppression hearing was whether appellant was in custody when he gave statements to law enforcement. After the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress, appellant made a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court entered brief findings and conclusions. However, we conclude that the findings and conclusions are inadequate for us to be able to determine whether the trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress. See id. In particular, the trial court failed to make findings and conclusions regarding the following issues:
• Whether appellant or law enforcement retained the keys to appellant's vehicle after he agreed to accompany Officer Castellano back to his home.
• When was appellant's vehicle towed?
• The number of officers present when appellant arrived at his house.
• Did Officer Ybarra tell appellant about the drug purchase made by the confidential informant?
• Did Officer Ybarra communicate to appellant probable cause to arrest him or that he believed appellant possessed drugs or was a suspect?
• Did Officer Ybarra tell appellant he was free to leave?
• Did Officer Ybarra believe appellant was free to leave?
• Did Officer Ybarra tell appellant he was not under arrest?
• Did Officer Castellano tell appellant he was not under arrest?
• The length of time appellant was subjected to the police investigation and the degree of force exerted by the police.
• Did the officers at appellant's home had guns? If so, did they brandish them?
• Did Officer Ybarra use any coercion when questioning appellant?
• Did Officer Ybarra threaten appellant when questioning him?
In light of the foregoing, we hereby ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for the entry of supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, including but not limited to findings and conclusions regarding the issues listed above. See id. The trial court shall make its findings and conclusions as ordered herein within THIRTY days from the date of this order. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings and conclusions to be filed with the Clerk of this Court within SIXTY days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental clerk's record and upon further order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 17th day of April, 2019.