Delafuente v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1734
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Delafuente was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for possession of marijuana and sentenced to three days’ confinement and a fine.
- Delafuente challenged the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion, contending the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The court of appeals reversed, prompting discretionary review by this Court which vacated the judgment and remanded for Mendoza-based considerations; the appellate court again reversed.
- On June 24, 2009, a police officer on I-10 stopped a gray Chevrolet after observing congestion in the inside westbound lane and driving slow (52 mph in a 65 mph zone) as the officer paced the vehicle.
- The officer smelled marijuana; the driver (Agüeros) presented an ID; appellant (Delafuente) produced a Texas driver’s license; a bag of marijuana and paraphernalia were found in the car; Agüeros was released and Delafuente was arrested.
- The trial court credited the offense report stating the vehicle was impeding traffic, and the court of appeals initially found a lack of specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion; this Court held the report’s facts, when properly construed, supported reasonable suspicion and affirmed denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances? | Delafuente argues the stop lacked specific, articulable facts. | State argues the report, viewed with reasonable inferences, showed impediment and slow speed. | Yes; the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Is remand for additional trial-court fact-finding necessary when the record is incomplete? | Delafuente seeks remand for additional findings under Ford and Mendoza. | State contends remand is unnecessary because the offense report credibly supports the stop. | No remand required; however, the court should consider the full set of facts and inferences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (required specific, articulable facts beyond mere conclusions for reasonable suspicion)
- Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (remand for supplemental findings when dispositive credibility is missing)
- Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (undisputed evidence may be disbelieved by the trial court; findings required for review)
- Saenz, 411 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (abate for additional findings when dispositive facts are absent)
- Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (need for adequate findings to review legal conclusions)
- Gonzales, 276 S.W.3d 88 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (driving slowly below speed limit without more may not impede traffic)