Opinion
NUMBERS 13-15-00491-CR
02-18-2016
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. ALVO LAYFITTE TUCKER, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Garza, Perkes and Longoria
OrderPer Curiam
The State perfected an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress entered by the 34th District Court of Victoria County, Texas, in cause number 15-01-28470-A. The State filed a motion to abate the appeal and remand to the trial court for supplemental findings of fact. The State contends that the trial court's findings of fact fail to provide the factual basis for why the trial court concluded there was an illegally prolonged detention. See Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining that "an investigative stop can last no longer than necessary to effect the purpose of the stop"). The State further maintains that the trial court's findings fail to address much of the arresting officer's testimony concerning the factors he believed provided him with reasonable suspicion to continue the detention of appellee Alvo Layfitte Tucker. See Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
"[U]pon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings." State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)). "[E]ssential findings" mean "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. (quoting Cullen, 195 S.W.3d at 699). The omission of findings and conclusions with respect to a potentially dispositive fact issue constitutes a "failure . . . to act" for purposes of Rule 44.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure; because such a failure is remediable by way of retroactive findings and conclusions upon remand, a court of appeals is authorized to remand the cause to the trial court with directions to supplement the record with the missing findings and conclusions. Id. at 676-77 (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4).
Because the state requested findings, we cannot presume that the trial court implicitly resolved all issues of historical fact and witness credibility in the light most favorable to its ultimate ruling. Id. at 674 (citing State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). Neither can we presume that a trial court disbelieved uncontradicted testimony that is inconsistent with its suppression ruling. Id. (citing Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 857).
The Court, having considered the documents on file and the State's motion, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted as stated herein. Accordingly, we GRANT the State's motion to abate this appeal and REMAND this matter to the trial court for additional findings and conclusions which should address the issue of reasonable suspicion insofar as necessary to provide this Court with a basis to review the application of the law to the facts of this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. The trial court's present findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to address the following: (1) whether the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) whether the canine sniff occurred beyond the time needed to investigate the circumstances that caused the officer to stop appellee's vehicle; and (3) the credibility of the witness's testimony in general and as to each factor relied on to justify the continued detention.
The trial court is instructed to make and file additional findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' directive in Cullen. See Cullen, 195 S.W.3d at 699. A supplemental clerk's record containing these findings of fact and conclusions of law should be filed with the Clerk of this Court within twenty days from the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 18th day of February, 2016.