State v. Sanchez

Full title: The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Eric Anthony SANCHEZ, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Feb 13, 2008

No. 04-07-00013-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 13, 2008)

Opinion

No. 04-07-00013-CR

Delivered and Filed: February 13, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH

Appealed from the County Court, Wilson County, Texas, Trial Court No. 05-08-0391-CRC, Honorable Claude D. Davis, Judge Presiding. AFFIRMED.

Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CATHERINE STONE, Justice.

The State of Texas presents an interlocutory appeal challenging the suppression of the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN) in the prosecution of Eric Anthony Sanchez for a first offense of driving while intoxicated. The State contends that Sanchez's challenge to the HGN test was outside the scope of his motion to suppress and should not have been considered at the pretrial hearing. Because we disagree with the State's contention, we affirm the court's ruling.

Standard of Review

In an appeal of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court applies a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court's application of the law. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). In doing so, we afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts supported by the record, especially when the findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We review the record to determine whether the trial judge's ruling is supported by the record and correct under some theory of law applicable to the case. Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court, we will uphold the trial court's decision. Maddox v. State, 682 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985).

Motion to Suppress and Pretrial Hearing

The trial court considered the admissibility of the HGN test in a pretrial hearing prompted by Sanchez's motion to suppress all tangible evidence, statements, and officer testimony in connection with his arrest. In his motion, Sanchez argued that police had no warrant, lawful authority, or probable cause to arrest him. Specifically, Sanchez's motion sought to suppress:

1. All tangible evidence seized by law enforcement officers in connection with the detention and arrest of Sanchez in this case or in connection with the investigation of this case.

2. All written and oral statements made by Sanchez to any law enforcement officers in connection with this case.

3. Testimony of law enforcement officers concerning any action of Sanchez while under detention or arrest in connection with this case.

4. Testimony of law enforcement officers concerning the tangible evidence or statements to which reference was made above.

Prior to the start of the pretrial hearing on Sanchez's motion to suppress, the State announced ready "for the actions of the arrest. If [defense counsel] . . . wants to make a Motion to Suppress a blood test that was done at the County Medical Center . . . we're not ready on that." All parties then agreed that they were proceeding on the issues of the stop and the arrest. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted that although the motion to suppress included some itemization, it did not specifically name nystagmus. Nonetheless, the court granted the suppression motion as to the nystagmus. The court ruled for the State, however, on the issue of probable cause for the arrest. In its sole issue on appeal, the State contends the trial court improperly suppressed the results of the HGN test because Sanchez's motion to suppress was based solely on lack of probable cause to stop and arrest Sanchez. In essence, the State contends the trial court erroneously sua sponte suppressed the HGN. We disagree with the State's view of the limited nature of the motion to suppress.

Discussion

On its face, the motion to suppress filed by Sanchez provided sufficient notice that the HGN test results were within the scope of the items or information sought to be suppressed. As noted above, Sanchez sought to suppress testimony of law enforcement officers concerning any action of Sanchez while under detention or arrest. This clearly encompasses his conduct during administration of the HGN test. The validity of the HGN test results was relevant to the arrest, and the trial court properly proceeded to rule on that issue. We give great deference to his ruling. See Estrada, 154 S.W.3d at 607. We also note that during the hearing, all parties treated the HGN test as part of the evidence relevant to the issue of probable cause to arrest, and the State presents no legal basis to suggest the HGN test results are separate from the arrest. Indeed, the State first raised the issue of the HGN test when it questioned the officer who administered the test. The State even argued to the trial court that the HGN results provided the arresting officers probable cause to arrest Sanchez. Accordingly, we conclude that Sanchez's motion to suppress provided the State with sufficient notice that he sought suppression of the HGN test results, and we overrule the State's sole issue on appeal. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.