In Re Ao
342 S.W.3d 236
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for participating in a burglary (A-Plus Storage) on Jan 18, 2010 and committed to Texas Youth Commission (TYC).
- Appellant moved to suppress evidence linking him to the burglary, arguing no reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle he rode in.
- Trial court overruled suppression motion; the appeal follows de novo review of law and deferential view of historical facts to the factfinder.
- Officer Mora observed a burglary-suspect vehicle at a closed Taco Bell drive-through between 2:00–3:00 a.m. and was aware of nearby burglaries and pattern of drive-through entries.
- A broadcast described a green SUV matching Mora’s observed vehicle; the vehicle drove away when Mora approached; the court considered factors beyond lateness and location to find reasonable suspicion.
- The court ultimately affirmed the adjudication and commitment order, applying appropriate standards for juvenile proceedings and disposition review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression was properly denied | State contends reasonable suspicion existed | Appellant asserts no reasonable suspicion | Supress was properly denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence of delinquent conduct | State supported by circumstantial evidence and matching vehicle | Appellant argues lack of facial identification, no forensic match | Legal sufficiency supported the delinquent conduct finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support disposition to TYC | State showed home supervision inadequate and need for TYC resources | Appellant argues home care could suffice | Evidence legally sufficient to support disposition to TYC |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (standard for reviewing suppression and historical facts in juvenile cases)
- Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (reasonable suspicion standard for detention)
- Klare v. State, 76 S.W.3d 68 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (late hour, closed business, and surrounding burglaries can be insufficient alone; factors considered)
- Amorella v. State, 554 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (reasonable suspicion when surrounding circumstances indicate crime afoot)
- Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998) (civil standards of review applicable to disposition)
- Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1965) (civil standard of review for evidentiary matters in disposition)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (negated factual sufficiency review in criminal matters; applies to juvenile proceedings)
- In re M.C.S., 327 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (applies legal sufficiency standard in juvenile delinquency context)
- In re M.L.C., No. 11-09-00081-CV, 2011 WL 322448 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2011) (applies legal sufficiency standard in juvenile context)