Mark Jason Normand v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00742-CR
Mark Jason Normand, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
NO. CR2021-418D, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark Jason Normand was charged with possessing at least four grams but less
than 200 grams of a controlled substance (heroin). See Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102,
.115(d). The indictment included an enhancement paragraph alleging that he had previously
been convicted of a felony offense. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.42. After being charged,
Normand filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his detention. The trial court
denied the motion, and Normand filed a motion requesting that the trial court issue findings
of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ruling. Following the trial court’s denial of his
motion, Normand entered a plea-bargain agreement and pleaded true to the enhancement
allegation. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. See id. §§ 12.32, .42.
Normand appealed the trial court’s suppression ruling. The record before this Court does not
contain any findings of fact or conclusions of law, and Normand has filed a motion to abate the
appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the trial court to enter findings and
conclusions related to its ruling.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “upon the request of the losing party
on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings,” which the court
defined as “findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a
basis upon which to review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.” State v. Cullen,
195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The findings must be “adequate and complete,
covering every potentially dispositive issue that might reasonably be said to have arisen in the
course of the suppression proceedings,” State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011), including “explicit credibility determination[s],” State v. Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666,
673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Findings of fact and conclusions of law “ensure that reviewing
courts need not presume, assume, or guess at what historical facts a trial judge actually found
when making a ruling in a motion to suppress hearing.” Id. at 671. Moreover, “Rule 44.4
authorizes the court of appeals to remand the case to the trial court so that the court of appeals
is not forced to infer facts from an unexplained ruling.” Cullen, 195 S.W.3d at 698 (citing Tex.
R. App. P. 44.4).
Accordingly, we grant Normand’s motion, abate the appeal, and remand the cause
to the trial court so that it may make findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to its
denial of Normand’s motion to suppress. The trial court is instructed to file with this Court a
supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings of fact and conclusions of law no later
than January 29, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). This appeal will be reinstated once the
supplemental clerk’s record is filed.
2
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith
Abated and Remanded
Filed: December 28, 2023
Do Not Publish
3