King, Donald Weston
PD-0046-15
| Tex. App. | Feb 12, 2015Background
- On Nov. 17, 2011 King was charged with DWI (enhanced). He moved to suppress evidence from a traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion; King pleaded nolo contendere and reserved the suppression issue on appeal.
- At the suppression hearing the sole witness was Corporal Tommy Villanueva, who testified he observed King "failing to maintain a single lane" and making an immediate U-turn in the middle of an intersection late at night.
- The officer produced a hand-drawn map of the intersection showing King’s movements; the map did not explicitly show lane counts and the officer testified he believed the road was four lanes.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion without making written findings; the State had requested judicial notice of the road being four lanes but the court did not rule on that request.
- The Third Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard (giving "almost total deference" to the trial court on mixed questions turning on credibility) and holding the record supports reasonable suspicion to stop King.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for denial of motion to suppress | De novo review is required because facts are not disputed and officer accreditation is undisputed | Abuse of discretion (almost total deference) is proper where resolution turns on credibility/demeanor and conflicting evidence exists | Abuse of discretion applied; appellate court did not err in deferring to trial court (affirmed) |
| Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop King | Officer’s later belief that road had four lanes is insufficient; map contradicted testimony; the particular statute cited by officer (545.051) may not apply to this U-turn | Totality of circumstances (weaving, immediate U-turn, time of night, officer’s experience) supports reasonable suspicion even if precise statutory violation is debated | Court held record supports reasonable suspicion; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (bifurcated review: defer to trial court on historical facts and credibility; de novo on law-to-fact application except when credibility/demeanor control)
- Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (de novo review where no factual dispute over events relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (distinguishing mixed questions that do not turn on credibility/demeanor)
- Johnson v. State, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (affords "almost total deference" on mixed questions when credibility/demeanor resolution is required)