Andrew J. Serrano v. State, 464 S.W.3d 1

Serrano was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to 180 days' confinement probated for one year.
Deputy Trevino stopped Serrano for speeding (81 mph in a 65 mph zone) and smelled alcohol; Serrano showed bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
Serrano refused standardized field sobriety tests and was transported to central intox for further testing.
Breath-test operator initiated the test after a 15-minute observation window; a video recorded the exposure, and a breath sample was taken in the intox room.
Wooten, the breath-test technician, testified about the 15-minute observation procedure and that she administered the test; Serrano’s counsel challenged whether the 15-minute rule was followed.
The trial court sua sponte instructed a jury under Article 38.23(a); the final charge did not include this instruction, and Serrano objected. The court and jury ultimately convicted Serrano.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the breath test should be suppressed for failure to observe 15 minutes	Serrano	Serrano	Affirmed admissibility; 15-minute observation supported
Whether the trial court erred by not giving a 38.23 instruction	Serrano	Serrano	No error; court did not need a 38.23 instruction

Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presumption of admissibility if DPS procedures followed)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for historical facts and legal application in suppression)
Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Alamanza-type framework for jury instruction review)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (38.23 instruction standard thresholds)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discretionary review of jury instructions)
Black v. State, 358 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (38.23 assessment when not meaningfully disputed)