454 S.W.3d 650
Tex. App.2014Background
- Laurent was charged with interference with public duties; he moved to quash and to suppress, which the trial court denied.
- Officer Contreras, Houston Police Department, arrested Laurent at a vehicle accident scene and was outside HPD jurisdiction at relevant times.
- Parties stipulated to facts about whether Contreras was performing public duties within law at the time.
- Laurent pleaded guilty under a plea agreement, preserving right to appeal the motions ruling.
- The trial court’s denial of the motions was challenged on appeal as to preservation and sufficiency of evidence for the offense.
- The appellate court analyzed what the motions could challenge and concluded no proper basis existed for pretrial challenges to facial validity or admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laurent preserved the complaint on appeal. | Laurent argues the stipulations show no public duties. | State says the issue was not preserved for review. | Issue preserved? No; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeVaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (motion to quash challenges facial validity of charging instrument)
- Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (pretrial sufficiency review improper)
- Woods v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (pretrial sufficiency review improper for arrest evidence)
- Rosenbaum v. State, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (no pretrial sufficiency review of elements)
- Cuellar v. State, 957 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997) (pretrial motion to quash on sufficiency; questioned validity of defendant’s position)
- State v. Kinkle, 902 S.W.2d 187 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (trial court cannot look behind indictment to determine sufficiency)
- Ex parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (estoppel in criminal cases (contracts))