Pfeiffer v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 568
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Pfeiffer challenged the suppression ruling after a traffic stop led to methamphetamine found in his truck.
- Trooper Kuhelengel detained Pfeiffer during a stop, then invoked a canine unit; the dog alerted on the truck.
- 7.13 grams of methamphetamine were found under the front floorboard during a subsequent search.
- Pfeiffer pled guilty to possession under a plea bargain and was sentenced to ten years' probation.
- Texarkana Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the stop lacked reasonable suspicion to detain while awaiting the canine unit and declined to address the State’s cross-issue due to no notice of appeal.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to resolve whether the State must file a separate notice of appeal for a cross-issue under Article 44.01(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must file a notice of appeal to raise a cross-issue under 44.01(c). | State argues cross-appeal allowed without notice because defendant appealed conviction. | Pfeiffer contends cross-issues arise from defendant’s appeal and require no separate notice. | State not required to file notice for cross-appeal |
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to consider the State’s cross-issue on reasonable suspicion. | State asserts cross-point valid to review admissibility of testimony influencing suspicion. | Pfeiffer asserts no cross-appeal jurisdiction since no independent appeal by State. | Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction unless cross-issue properly raised |
| What limits apply to the State’s cross-appeal under Article 44.01(c). | State seeks legal ruling despite defendant gaining relief; cross-issues permissible if beneficial to State. | Cross-appeal should be limited; State cannot obtain relief without defendant’s relief first. | Cross-appeal is permissible when likely to benefit State; otherwise not |
Key Cases Cited
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (State may raise illegal-sentence issue without notice when defendant appeals)
- Mizell v. State, 70 S.W.3d 156 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001) (cross-appeal procedure related to 44.01 applicability explained)
- Armstrong v. State, 805 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (bright-line rule limiting when cross-points may be addressed)
- Ganesan v. State, 45 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.-Austin 2001) (State’s cross-appeal not allowed without notice for ruling on law)
- Strong v. State, 87 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002) (Rule 25.2(a) discussion on notice of appeal applicability)
- Malley v. State, 9 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000) (illustrates cross-appeal principles in state appellate practice)
- McClinton v. State, 38 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (court rejected need for notice to raise cross-appeal in some contexts)
- Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (broad appellate jurisdiction after defendant’s appeal)