Manuel Nava, Jr. v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11622

Officer Ferguson observed an F-150 exit a parking lot; an unidentified man ran after the truck, then stopped and walked back toward the lot. Right as the truck’s passenger door opened, Ferguson stopped the vehicle driven by Manuel Nava, Jr.
Nava moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion without taking testimony or affidavits and without a hearing.
Nava pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement immediately after denial and received a suspended one-year sentence with 18 months’ community supervision; he appealed.
The Court of Appeals abated the appeal to obtain findings of fact and conclusions; the trial court then held a post-abatement hearing and read facts from the officer’s report into the record and entered findings supporting the stop.
The appellate court held the trial court erred by admitting new evidence after abatement (the abatement did not authorize an evidentiary hearing) and therefore excluded the post-abatement evidence and findings from the appellate record.
With only Nava’s unsworn suppression memorandum in the record, the Court concluded the State failed to meet its burden to show the stop was reasonable under either the community-caretaking exception or as based on reasonable suspicion of reckless driving; the conviction was reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Nava)	Held
Whether the traffic stop was justified under the community caretaking exception	Officer reasonably stopped vehicle to assist/ investigate a possible disturbance and welfare concern	No evidence officer acted for caretaking purposes; memorandum alone insufficient	Reversed: no evidentiary support in record to show caretaking motive; State failed its burden
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion of reckless driving to detain Nava	Opening passenger door while exiting lot justified suspicion of reckless driving	Record lacks facts about door opening, truck movement, or officer observations to support reasonable suspicion	Reversed: no specific, articulable facts in record supporting suspicion of reckless driving
Whether trial court could add evidence after appellate abatement	Trial court relied on post-abatement officer report/readings to justify stop	Post-abatement evidentiary hearing exceeded court’s limited mandate and altered appellate record	Reversed: post-abatement evidence excluded; trial court erred in admitting it
Harmless-error analysis for denial of suppression motion before guilty plea	Denial did not materially affect plea	Denial prevented presentation of defense and likely affected plea decision	Reversed: cannot say error was harmless; plea may have been influenced by suppression denial

Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court as finder of fact in suppression hearings)
Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (factors for community caretaking exception)
Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant’s initial burden on motion to suppress)
Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (burden shift to State to prove warrantless search reasonable)
Bishop v. State, 85 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (motion to suppress may allege Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to shift burden)
Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State must prove exception to warrant requirement)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (objective reasonableness of stops not determined by officer’s subjective motivation)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community caretaking exception to warrant requirement)
Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (prejudice from denial of right to present a defense can render error harmful)