Summary
vacating and remanding in light of Jardines appellate court judgment that affirmed denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained as result of dog sniff at defendant's front door
Summary of this case from Ex parte SaucedoOpinion
Nos. PD–0490–13 PD–0491–13.
2013-10-23
Gerardo Tomas RIVAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.
On Appellant's Petitions For Discretionary Review From The Second Court Of Appeals, Tarrant County. Gerardo Tomas Rivas, Palestine, TX, pro se. Joe Shannon, Jr., District Attorney Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for State.
On Appellant's Petitions For Discretionary Review From The Second Court Of Appeals, Tarrant County.
Gerardo Tomas Rivas, Palestine, TX, pro se. Joe Shannon, Jr., District Attorney Tarrant County, Fort Worth, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for State.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. A dog sniff at his front door led to the charges against him. He filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. Appellant then pleaded guilty to the charges, and the trial court sentenced him to 17 years in prison on each count, to run concurrently.
On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the convictions. Rivas v. State, Nos. 02–12–00062–CR and 02–12–00063–CR, 2013 WL 978911, 2013 Tex.App. LEXIS 2730 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth March 14, 2013) (not designated for publication).
Appellant has filed petitions for discretionary review arguing that the appellate court erred under the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Fla. v. Jardines, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). In Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Jardines was handed down on March 26, 2013, 12 days after the appellate court issued its opinion in these cases.
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of Jardines. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petitions for discretionary review, vacate the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and remand these cases to the Court of Appeals in light of Jardines.