Nicholas Ryan Nadeau v. the State of Texas
05-19-01137-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background:
- Officer Colton Roelofs surveilled two Frisco convenience stores known for selling meth pipes and followed Nicholas Nadeau after seeing him enter one store.
- Roelofs initiated a traffic stop after Nadeau turned into the second store, citing failure to signal continuously for 100 feet before turning (Tex. Transp. Code § 545.104(b)).
- During the stop Roelofs asked to search; after Nadeau refused, Roelofs walked his K‑9 around the car, the dog alerted, and Nadeau then admitted to methamphetamine and marijuana in the console; a later search confirmed drugs.
- Dash‑cam footage and an expert (Daryl Parker) showed Nadeau signaled at least 162 feet before turning; Roelofs testified he saw only about 25 feet of signaling.
- The trial court denied Nadeau’s motion to suppress (crediting the totality of evidence and officer testimony), and a jury convicted Nadeau of meth possession; punishment was 25 years and a fine.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; the Court of Appeals found at least one non‑frivolous issue (the suppression ruling) and abated the appeal to appoint new counsel to brief the merits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion that Nadeau failed to signal continuously for 100 feet before turning? | Nadeau: video and expert show he signaled >100 feet; no traffic violation occurred. | State/Roelofs: Officer observed signaling only ~25 feet; officer had reasonable suspicion to stop. | Appellate court did not resolve merits; found this is an arguable issue and remanded for briefing. |
| Did the trial court err in denying the suppression motion by crediting officer testimony over video? | Nadeau: the dash‑cam and expert measurements undermine the officer’s version; suppression should have been granted. | State: court may weigh testimony and other evidence; not limited to video. | Appellate court treated this as a non‑frivolous appellate issue to be briefed by newly appointed counsel. |
| Was appellate counsel’s Anders brief sufficient such that the appeal is wholly frivolous? | Nadeau: raised a pro se response asserting the suppression issue is arguable. | Appellate counsel: concluded the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw. | Court concluded counsel had not shown the appeal was wholly frivolous, struck the Anders brief, granted withdrawal, and abated to appoint new counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel may move to withdraw but appellate court must independently review record for arguable issues)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (definition of frivolous appeals and standards for appellate review)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedural protections and notice when counsel files an Anders brief)
- Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020) (appeal is frivolous only if it lacks any basis in law or fact)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (if an appeal presents arguable issues, court must abate for appointment of new appellate counsel)