the State of Texas v. Dustin Grier Hartley
03-21-00230-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2021Background
- The State appealed a trial court order suppressing evidence after Dustin Grier Hartley was arrested for DWI following a traffic stop.
- The trial court granted Hartley’s motion to suppress on the ground the stop was unlawful and later issued written findings and conclusions after the State requested them.
- At the suppression hearing the court considered a 911 recording in which a caller reported Hartley driving recklessly.
- The trial court’s written findings did not address key facts about the 911 call: what was said, whether the information was relayed to the officers before the stop, or whether it supported reasonable suspicion that an offense occurred.
- The State moved to abate the appeal and obtain additional findings because the existing findings were insufficient for appellate review of the reasonable-suspicion issue.
- The Court of Appeals granted the State’s motion, abated the appeal, and remanded for the trial court to make additional fact findings and conclusions; a supplemental clerk’s record was ordered by July 19, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hartley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court provided "essential findings" after a request on a motion to suppress | Findings are incomplete; appellate court cannot review without additional factual findings about the 911 info | Existing findings suffice; suppression ruling stands | Court: findings were inadequate; abate and remand for more findings |
| Whether the trial court needed to make findings about the 911 call (content, relay to officers, and its support for reasonable suspicion) | The 911-call details are essential to the reasonable-suspicion analysis and must be found | The 911-call details were not addressed but suppression was proper | Court: findings on the 911 call were essential; trial court must make them |
| Whether appellate court may presume missing factual findings when requested by the losing party | Appellate court must not presume dispositive facts; must abate for additional findings | Presumption argued implicitly by urging upholding suppression | Court: may not presume; must abate when findings are inadequate and requested |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saenz, 411 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (trial court must state essential findings on request when suppressing evidence)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appellate courts may not presume factual findings that are dispositive when requested findings are inadequate)
- State v. Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (further authority requiring adequate findings for appellate review)
- State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining the need for factual findings to avoid appellate assumptions)
- State v. Cortez, 543 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (reasonable-suspicion review requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances)
- Jaganathan v. State, 479 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (defines reasonable suspicion as specific articulable facts and rational inferences)
- Abney v. State, 394 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (clarifies the specific-articulable-facts standard for reasonable suspicion)