State v. Van Natta, 811 S.W.2d 608

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellee was arrested and charged with the offense of ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍driving while intoxicated. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress. The Court of ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍Appeals affirmed. State v. Van Natta, 805 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth, 1991).

The State raises five grounds for review. As is ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍true in every case where discretion*609ary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we refuse the State’s ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍petition for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and BAIRD, J., would grant.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Van Natta

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jul 3, 1991

Citations: 811 S.W.2d 608; 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 172; 1991 WL 117451; No. 532-91

Docket Number: No. 532-91

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.