Brittany Lauren Payne v. State
05-17-00032-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- At ~3:20 a.m. on Oct. 13, 2015, NTTA employee Tesfay found Payne asleep in her car partially in a traffic lane on an on‑ramp; two tires were in the lane and two on the shoulder. Tesfay followed NTTA policy and did not wake her, instead blocking the lane and warning traffic.
- Trooper Washington arrived ~25 minutes later, shined a flashlight on Payne, tapped her window, and she immediately sped off; Washington pursued with lights and siren and observed weaving and lane changes without signaling before she stopped about six minutes later.
- Payne moved to suppress evidence; the trial court denied the motion and later entered written findings relying on (1) the trooper’s community‑caretaking function and (2) reasonable suspicion to detain.
- Payne pleaded guilty to fleeing an officer (deferred adjudication) and DWI with BAC > .15 (probated jail sentence), and appealed only the denial of the suppression motion, challenging the community‑caretaking ground.
- The Court of Appeals considered jurisdictional timeliness for the DWI appeal and, relying on Gonzales, allowed amendment of the notice of appeal because the companion cases were treated together and the omission was an amendable defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress based on the community‑caretaking detention | Payne: Trooper’s actions were not a lawful community‑caretaking detention and thus violated the Fourth Amendment | State: Trooper’s initial contact was a valid community‑caretaking detention; alternatively, trooper had reasonable suspicion to detain | Court: Affirmed. Payne failed to challenge the independent reasonable‑suspicion ground; even on merits, facts support reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the DWI appeal was timely despite initial omission of the cause number | Payne: Omission was amendable under Rule 25.2(f) and Gonzales; companion cases treated as one | State: Notice of appeal for DWI was untimely | Court: Allowed amendment and took jurisdiction; omission was an amendable defect given consolidated treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. State, 421 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (notice of appeal may be amended to correct omissions where parties treated companion cases together)
- York v. State, 342 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (officer may have reasonable suspicion to investigate DWI where vehicle occupant is asleep in running car late at night with headlights on)
- Copeland v. State, 501 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (appellant must challenge all independent legal grounds supporting a ruling or those unchallenged grounds stand)