Justin Lee Solano v. State
371 S.W.3d 593
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Solano was convicted of possessing methamphetamine under one gram and appeals the denial of a suppression motion and a new-trial motion.
- Deputy Raul Lopez observed McDaniel's car; appellant exited the vehicle, opened and then hooded the engine, and Lopez returned to check on them.
- Lopez triggered emergency lights and approached the vehicle; appellant complied with a direction to come to the deputy, creating the challenged initial interaction/detention.
- The court applied Ford v. State to evaluate suppression issues, deferring to factual findings but reviewing legal conclusions de novo under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard.
- The court held the initial detention could be justified by the deputy’s community caretaking function, not requiring prior reasonable suspicion.
- The new-trial issue was not preserved for review because the record showed no proper presentation to the trial court under Rule 21.6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial detention lacked reasonable suspicion. | Solano contends no reasonable suspicion existed to detain him. | State argues the detention was justified as community caretaking. | Detention valid under community caretaking rationale. |
| Whether the denial of the new-trial motion was proper. | Solano asserts new evidence warranted a new trial under Rule 21.3(f). | State contends the issue was not preserved per Rule 21.6. | Issue not preserved; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for suppression review; de novo review of law; factual findings upheld)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (totality of circumstances framework for evaluating detentions)
- Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (community caretaking permissible when welfare of individual is at issue)
- Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (four-factor test for caretaking motive and reasonableness)
- Gibson v. State, 253 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007) (caretaking purpose may justify seizure when welfare motive is primary)
- Thompson v. State, 243 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (preservation requirement for new-trial motions)
- Burrus v. State, 266 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (certificate of presentment insufficient to perfect presentment)