*1 736 conditions.” 408 U.S. parole
OPINION violation 2593, 2602, 471, 485, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. PER CURIAM. (1972). Applicant find that has not provisions of Article Pursuant hearing a given preliminary a within been Proce- 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Texas De- time and order the reasonable dure, trial court transmit- the clerk Justice, partment of Parole Divi- Criminal application ted to this Court this for writ preliminary a hear- give Applicant sion to corpus. parte Young, of habeas Ex (30) days of the issuance ing thirty within (Tex.Crim.App.1967). Ap- opinion. of this plicant pleaded guilty and was convicted indicted for a Applicant has been felony driving intoxicated and sen- while offense; forty-one day therefore the new years’ imprisonment. Appli- tenced to five pa final giving Applicant his deadline cant appeal did not his conviction. Texas Gov’t hearing under role revocation Applicant alleges that he was arrested 508.282(a)(1)(A) § does not Section Code parole April on a revocation warrant fi Applicant’s claim apply. preliminary given but has been hearing is denied. nal revocation Code, required by Section hearing as Gov’t final hear- parole 508.2811 or a revocation KELLER, P.J., Participating. Not ing required by as Gov’t Code Section 508.282(a)(1)(A). re
The trial court ordered and Depart an from the Texas
ceived affidavit Justice,
ment of Parole Criminal Division
(TDCJ-Parole) addressing issues for a application
raised writ corpus. habeas The affidavit states that of Texas STATE Applicant given preliminary has not been v. hearing charges pend he has new ing hearing and that no such will be initi STEVENS, Appellee. Cory A. pending charges adjudi until all are ated No. PD-0226-06. contrary Texas position cated. This Ap Section Gov’t Code 508.2811. Even Appeals of Texas. Criminal he is still plicant charges pending, has new 3,Oct. preliminary hearing entitled to a “within time” to determine whether grounds exist probable cause or reasonable the conditions
which show that he violated § parole.
of his 508.2§11. Code, Tex. Gov’t Brewer, Supreme Morrissey process requires that due
Court held prompt be held “as preliminary been
ly parolee after a has convenient” there is
arrested to “determine whether ground cause or reasonable has com parolee that the arrested
believe the acts that constitute
mitted would *2 Price, Cory A. Angleton, T. for
Robert Stevens. Austin, Paul, Attorney, State’s
Matthew
the State.
for
WOMACK, J.,
for
opinion
delivered
Court.
a unanimous
driving
arrested for
The
(“DWI”)
intoxicated
while he was
while
supervi-
deferred-adjudication community
manslaughter. involuntary
sion
guilt.
adjudicate
motion
case
trial court in the DWI
suppress all
collected
evidence
motion
arrest,
case
and that
during
appellee’s
school,
was dismissed.
the trial
Subsequently,
Fant observed the appellee’s large,
adjudicate
the motion to
parked sideways,
four-wheel-drive vehicle
guilt
granted a
road,
all
angle
at an
in a ditch. Believ-
of the
evidence
DAW offense based on ing
suspicious
it could be the
subject
*3
estoppel.
appealed,
The
motorist,
State
call or
stranded
ap-
Fant
the Court of Appeals
proached
and
affirmed.1
the appellee’s
As
vehicle.
he
this case to
approached,
reviewed
determine whether
the
high
vehicle “took off at a
of Appeals applied
appropri-
the Court
the
speed, jumped
curb,
rate of
off
spun
the
tires,”5
ate standard of
Because the
away.
review.2
the
and
so doing,
drove
In
not,
did
Court
laws,
we reverse and remand.
the appellee violated several traffic
including city
against
ordinance
spinning
1995,
appellee
In
the
pleaded
contest
tires, or “exhibition of acceleration.” Fant
involuntary
to
manslaughter
Brazoria
lights,
activated his overhead
followed the
County
placed
years
and was
on 10
de-
appellee,
stopped
appellee’s
the
vehi-
ferred-adjudication
community supervi-
cle.
In
appellee
sion.
June
the
was ar-
in Tom
County
rested
Green
for DWI. As
The Tom Green
County Court
Law
violation,3
result
this
the Brazoria
granted
appellee’s
the
suppress.
motion to
District
County
Attorney’s
filed a Although
office
the
Court confirmed
“the
to adjudicate guilt
motion
the
involun-
before me
...
was the officer
tary-manslaughter
September
vehicle,”6
stopping
offense
within the law in
this
2003.4
express findings
the Court made no
of fact
or conclusions of law. The
subse-
State
January 2004,
In
the
appellee
quently dismissed the DWI case.
motion
evidence in the Tom
County
case, questioning
DWI
the
based
the find-
September
of the
validity
appellee’s
initial
of the
stop
ings of the Tom Green County Court at
At a pretrial hearing,
Law,
vehicle.
both the
to sup-
filed a motion
presented
State
defense
evidence.
press7 all
the evidence
from
DWI
the State’s
Among
Sergeant
response
witnesses
arrest in
was
the State’s motion to
Jeff
of the
Angelo
Depart-
guilt
County.
Fant
San
Police
adjudicate
Brazoria
Officer
County
court,
ment.
Fant testified that he
following
was Brazoria
trial
two
subject”
to a
dispatched
“suspicious
pretrial hearings, granted
call at
the motion to
early morning
judge
Rio
School
suppress.
Vista
collater-
determined
precluded
June
2003. A
from the
al estoppel
independent
few blocks
an
re-
1.
(Tex.App.-
appellee’s
State
Being quite specific quite level of then extended same Court my ruling all it that all the does is shows Court, Brazoria deference to the by the facts were considered be cor- “that would likewise that all the pretty clear on record that is theory under a of law rect concerning facts were considered wheth- by the rec- supported to the case and ble er or not there was reasonable ord, presented a ground it was not even cause.... It stop and —or *4 to, upon, by or relied the trial court.”10 the ultimate issue of fact was case.8 Appeals’ of disagree with Court order, the same standard of review suppression application In its the Court found of Brazo- County the Tom Green following: to both an “almost County Although ria cases. County the Court of Tom Green [T]hat appro- be total deference” standard would finding stop made its that the and arrest County Green DWI priate the Tom of Defendant was without case, that court heard witness tes- cause, and therefore and/or position in a to make timony and was that all facts the unlawful determinations, credibility the decision of defendant, arrest and detention of DWI County the Tom Green court is not under Stevens, Cory A. been decided have under here. The sole review review County of County, Court Tom Green County court. As is that of the Brazoria fully adjudicated Texas were as to factu- such, standard of appropriate review al findings resulting Defendant’s ar- solely on the circum- should be based rest, adjudicated and were of favor surrounding that decision. stances Defendant, thus, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and in accordance County judge held The Brazoria two Guajardo v. State [109 with pretrial hearings, after the first of which (Tex.Cr.App.2003) the Motion to Sup- ] record of the Tom he reviewed the entire press all evidence from Tom Green He no County proceeding. heard County should be GRANTED. testimony, only arguments of witness credibility determi- counsel. He made appealed, claiming the Brazo- nations or determinations historical County ria trial court in applying erred County judge facts. The Brazoria collateral estoppel granting appel- explicitly granting that his of the motion motion to suppress. lee’s The Court of based on the doctrine of suppress was District, Fourteenth al- Appeals estoppel. collateral though acknowledging estop- the collateral pel ruling “questionable,” to be affirmed.9 on a reviewing Courts afford almost total def Appeals
The Court of found that motion to suppression motion in the Tom Green erence to a trial court’s determination record, County supported by due to a historical facts DWI case was is based stop especially lack of reasonable when the determination Record, 10.Id., Reporter's 3: 10-11. at 567-68. Vol. at 567. credibility Any analysis on an whether evaluation of demean- lawsuit.” or.11 grant- applies necessarily The same level of deference is doctrine will involve to mixed questions ed of law and of the record of the thorough examination “application questions,” of law to fact whether a “to determine where the resolution likewise turns on an grounded factfinder could have its rational credibility evaluation of and demeanor.12 specific other than the decision on a fact Appellate courts review de novo party fact that the now claims has been tions of law to facts that do not involve in his favor. Collateral resolved credibility determinations of and demean- factual determina- only specific deals with estop- or.13 A decision to tions, legal legal conclu- claims law, pel is a applied sions.” facts, for appropri- which de novo review is
ate. Conclusion Appeals the Court of short, Appeals erred stating correct in reviewing the Bra- applying a deferential standard to may affirm a if it trial court’s decision A de ruling. trial zoria court’s *5 any theory applicable correct on of to law of the trial court’s decision novo review record, supported by the case and estoppel appropriate. collateral is apply theory applies other of law this case. to the Court We will reverse and remand The record from Brazoria demon of for reconsideration. Appeals hearings entirely that the centered strates question of whether collateral es- J., COCHRAN, concurring filed toppel precluded presentation of evi in KEASLER and opinion, which validity stopping dence of HERVEY, JJ., joined. County. in Tom supports theory. An ex record no other J., COCHRAN, concurring of the Tom Green amination the record opinion, in KEASLER which County hearing, although essential in de HERVEY, JJ., joined. termining estoppel ap collateral whether plies, bearing particular has no on this majority opinion as far agree I with the question. be goes. might appear But it as it premise that the doctrine upon based not be understood to
We should
finding
estoppel applies to
of collateral
saying
estoppel ques
be
that all collateral
motion to
pretrial
cause on a
probable
legal questions.
tions are
doctrine
that
premise
That is a
that
evidence.
estoppel
simply
collateral
“means
it
necessarily accept. And
is
once
I do not
when an issue of ultimate fact has
specifically
threshold issue that this Court
by
judg
been
a valid and final
determined
State,1
in
v.
ment,
Guajardo
again
litigated
that
cannot
be
declined
answer
issue
question
had raised the
parties
any
although
in
future
the same
between
436, 443,
Swenson,
State,
(Tex.
U.S.
14. Ashe v.
955 S.W.2d
11. Guzman
(1970).
ations, that the suppression such as case final judgment the DWI was not a and that not jeopardy the merits had case,
attached in that did not finding
reflect a fact.”5 particular basis, 5)Is independent Guajardo, process due 2.Id. n. 1. In we there a review, but, clause, grounds be- the State’s six for jeopardy of the double solely so, cause the case could be based resolved estoppel, does of collateral it tion ground may not on the first defendant did where the —a *6 appellate estop- review obtain of his collateral judgment? end in a final claim, pel rejected when the trial that 457, n. 1. Id. at claim, if he fails to a record of the introduce proceeding second ("Be- J., concurring) (Meyers, at 463 3. Id. appeal to include that record dis- on —we jeopardy attaches does cause dismissal before grounds other missed the State’s as unneces- qualify disposition’ as a 'final factu- not sary disposition Id. at 459. the case. estoppel question, collateral al Guajardo through di- Grounds three five in J., ble.”); (Hervey, joined 467 Keas- Id. at rectly posed the of whether collateral ler, J., (“An ruling concurring) evidentiary on pretrial estoppel applies suppression rul- ruling on an is not a a motion ing: ultimate fact or law the cocaine issue of 3) ruling pretrial suspicion on Is evidentiary ruling is not This case. arrest, stop, probable ruling or cause to (citation omitted); id judgment.”) final merely, regarding an ultimate or J., Keller, P.J., (Hervey, joined by 469 held, ruling have other courts Keasler, J., ("I concurring) hold would that admissibility of evidence which cannot estoppel principles do not estoppel the basis of serve as a collateral beyond jeopardy cases Ashe’s double criminal relitigation issue in another bar context.”). court on another case? 4) jeopardy pretrial attach Does in a (Tex. pretrial 4. State 187 S.W.3d a motion to is a 2006) (Fowler, J., stop, App.-Houston [14th Dist.] on reasonable arrest, (citing Rodriguez, cause to on a case that is dissenting) State v. dismissed, judgment, subsequently a final pet.); (Tex.App.-Eastland no S.W.3d held, merely, as other courts have Henry, (Tex.App.-San State v. admissibility of evidence pet.)). Antonio serve as a collat- which cannot the basis of relitigation that issue eral bar at 567 & n. 4. 5. Id. court on case? another another