Erick Hernandez v. State
07-14-00388-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 6, 2015Background
- Erick Hernandez was stopped without a warrant after an officer said he observed a traffic violation; a search of the vehicle produced methamphetamine and Hernandez was convicted of possession.
- Hernandez moved to suppress the drug evidence; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him.
- At the suppression hearing, conflicting testimony arose about whether the vehicle’s taillights were off when the officer first observed it; an in-car video began after the officer initiated the stop and showed lit taillights.
- Defense argued the video and other witnesses undermined the officer’s testimony; the trial court remarked it would take the officer’s observations “at face value” absent evidence showing the vehicle could not have been as the officer described.
- Hernandez appealed, arguing the trial court improperly placed the burden on him to prove the stop was illegitimate. The court rejected that claim and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly assigned to Hernandez the burden to prove a warrantless traffic stop was illegitimate | Hernandez: the trial court’s "take at face value" comment shows it required him to prove the stop unlawful | State: the court was resolving credibility and applied the proper burden (State must prove legitimacy once defendant shows a seizure occurred) | Court: No error — comment addressed credibility, not an improper burden shift; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the burden-shift objection was preserved for appeal | Hernandez: raises the burden-assignment claim on appeal | State: defense did not timely object below to preserve the claim | Court: Not preserved; defendant did not clearly object at the suppression hearing; even if preserved, the comment concerned credibility, not burden allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (once defendant shows a warrantless seizure occurred, State bears burden to prove the seizure was reasonable or pursuant to a warrant)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate preservation requires timely, specific objection so trial court can remedy error)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation is evaluated in the context of the entire record)
- Hughes v. State, 334 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (trial judge is sole trier of fact and determines witness credibility)