Vibha Harish Patel v. State, 01-14-00575-CR

Appellant Vibha Harish Patel was charged with DWI; a jury found her guilty and the judge sentenced her to 5 days in jail.
Police encountered her vehicle in a ditch in the early morning hours; officers detected alcohol odor and observed indicia of impairment on standardized field sobriety tests.
Corporal Brandon Patin transported Patel to the station and, as the certified breath‑test operator, administered an Intoxilyzer 5000 test; the printout shows the first sample at 4:57 a.m. and a result over twice the legal limit.
DPS technical supervisor Carly Davies testified that operators must continuously observe the subject for at least 15 minutes prior to testing and that failure to do so renders a test invalid; she said Patel’s test timing made compliance impossible.
Patin testified he performed a 15‑minute observation, but his detailed timeline estimates (leaving scene at 4:29 a.m., drive, processing, delays) conflicted with the Intoxilyzer timestamp; the trial court nonetheless admitted the breath result over appellant’s objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of breath test under DPS 15‑minute observation requirement	Patel: operator did not continuously observe for the required 15 minutes; timeline and Intoxilyzer timestamp make compliance impossible, so result is invalid	State (Patin): operator testified he observed Patel for 15 minutes; patrol car clock and Intoxilyzer clock may not be synchronized; timeline estimates	Trial court admitted the breath test over objection; appellant argues this was an abuse of discretion and seeks reversal on appeal

Atkinson v. State, 923 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (breath tests governed by DPS rules)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (appellate review constraints where trial court makes credibility findings)
Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for overturning facts outside reasonable disagreement)
Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harmless‑error review for nonconstitutional statutory violations)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standards for admissibility and rules compliance)
State v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to trial court factual findings and their scope)
State v. Story, 445 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court)
Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings)
Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (de novo review of legal questions and appellate scope)