Erick Hernandez v. State, 07-14-00388-CR

Eric Hernandez was charged with possession of 4–200 grams of methamphetamine with a prior-felony enhancement; he pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, reserving the right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress.
Officer Ricky Matthews stopped Hernandez’s 1997 Chevrolet after observing what he believed were the taillights off and the driver intermittently riding the brakes to simulate taillights being on.
In-car video showed the pickup’s taillights illuminated throughout the recording; Matthews testified running lights/headlights behavior could explain discrepancies and believed the taillights were not on until the driver engaged the switch.
Matthews frisked Hernandez after suspecting he was concealing a weapon; Hernandez consented to the pat-down and a baggie of suspected methamphetamine was found.
At the suppression hearing Hernandez and a passenger (girlfriend Jenna Ortiz) disputed Matthews’ account; the trial judge credited Matthews’ testimony and denied the motion to suppress.
No findings of fact/conclusions of law were entered; Hernandez appealed arguing the judge improperly accepted the officer’s testimony “at face value” rather than evaluating all witness credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of stop (reasonable suspicion)	Hernandez: trial court improperly required him to disprove stop and merely accepted officer’s testimony at face value instead of weighing competing testimony	State: trial court has discretion to weigh credibility and reasonably believed officer’s account that supported the stop	Trial court did not abuse discretion; judge permissibly credited officer and denial of suppression upheld
Admissibility of contraband from frisk	Hernandez: challenged frisk as unsupported by suspicion he was armed	State: officer observed posture suggesting concealment of weapon and frisk was consensual; trial court credited this	Not separately contested on appeal; court’s finding sustained implicitly by denial of suppression

State v. Story, 445 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings; defer to trial court findings)
State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate review standard — factual findings upheld if within zone of reasonable disagreement)
Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate court may affirm on any correct legal theory)
Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to trial court as factfinder on credibility)
Hughes v. State, 334 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2011) (credibility choices at suppression hearings not second-guessed on appeal)
Delijevic v. State, 323 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2010) (reasonable minds could conclude traffic violations occurred; suppression denial upheld)
Patterson v. State, 291 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2009) (traffic violation can justify detention)
Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (reasonable suspicion need not be absolute certainty)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual stops are permissible where objective traffic violation occurred)