Leal, Jonathan Albert
PD-0836-15
Tex. App.Jul 7, 2015Background
- Jonathan Albert Leal was convicted of felony DWI in Galveston County after a blood draw performed under Texas Transportation Code 724.012(b)(3)(B) (repeat-offender provision).
- Leal filed an amended motion to suppress challenging the statute and arguing Missouri v. McNeely could impact the warrantless draw; a suppression hearing focused on the stop validity.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion; the blood test results were admitted over trial objections; McNeely was decided during post-trial motions.
- Leal filed a supplemental/new-trial motion relying on McNeely; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals initially reversed and later the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review, remanding for preservation analysis; the Court ultimately held issues regarding preservation and the Fourth Amendment are central to the ruling.
- The ultimate holding addresses preservation of the challenge and whether the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment, with remand for further proceedings on suppression or new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of challenge to mandatory blood draw | Leal asserts amendment preserved his Fourth Amendment claim | State claims amended motion lacked specificity to preserve | Not preserved (amended motion insufficiently specific) |
| Reasonableness of blood draw under Fourth Amendment | Leal argues no valid exception justified the warrantless draw | State relies on repeat-offender implied-consent statute as a justification | Unreasonable without a recognized exception; draw violated Fourth Amendment |
| Effect of McNeely on implied-consent statute validity | McNeely undermines per se exigency justifications for the statute | McNeely does not automatically render the statute unconstitutional in all contexts | Issue addressed; McNeely influences analysis; court remands for possible suppression outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (implied-consent and warrantless draws; static rule limitations)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (information about implied consent and weight of testimony)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (preservation of error; specificity requirements)
- Jones v. State, 437 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (de novo review principles; standard of review for suppression)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (holding that no per se exigency; case used to assess implied-consent draw)