the State of Texas v. Mason LeBlanc

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00201-CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT
V.
MASON LEBLANC, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Comal County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021CR0785, Honorable Randy C. Gray, Presiding
October 17, 2022
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
In the present appeal, the State has filed a Motion to Abate and requests a remand
of this matter to Comal County Court at Law Number One for making additional findings
of fact and conclusions of law. Mason LeBlanc is charged with the offense of Driving
While Intoxicated. Following a hearing on LeBlanc’s motion to suppress, the trial court
signed an order granting the motion to suppress on May 24, 2022. After the State filed
its notice of appeal, as well as a motion for reconsideration and request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the trial court filed findings and conclusions on June 23, 2022.
The State then requested “additional or amended” findings and conclusions; the trial court
denied and struck the State’s motion on the motion of LeBlanc on July 11, 2022. Two
days later, the State objected to LeBlanc’s motion to strike and the trial court’s order.
In State v. Cullen, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that even if a statute
does not otherwise provide for the issuance of findings, a party who loses on a motion to
suppress is entitled to findings of fact upon request. Haskell v. State, No. AP-77,091,
2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 522, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2022) (per curiam)
(citing 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). Because appellate courts should
not “presume, assume, or guess at what historical facts a trial judge actually found when
making a ruling in a motion to suppress hearing,” it is essential that the trial court make
findings of fact and conclusions of law that are complete and unambiguous.1 Mendoza,
365 S.W.3d at 671. The Court of Criminal Appeals explained in Cullen:
Without findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court of appeals was left
in the undesirable position of having to make assumptions about the
reasons for the trial court’s decision. [Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure]
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. While Rule 44.4 remedies the problem in this case, the efficient
administration of justice will be served by a requirement that trial judges
respond to a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Effective
from the date of this opinion, the requirement is: upon the request of the
losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its
essential findings. By “essential findings,” we mean that the trial court
must make 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.
1The Court of Criminal Appeals also notes that a trial court’s inclusion of “weasel words” can create
ambiguity and make it impossible to determine the basis for the court’s decision. State v. Mendoza, 365
S.W.3d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
2
195 S.W.3d at 698–99 (alteration and emphasis added). The court elaborated that these
findings “need to be recorded in some way” – i.e., they may be presented orally or in
writing. Id. at 699; Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d at 670.
In the present appeal, the motion states without detail: “The State is entitled to
essential and potentially dispositive findings of fact and conclusions of law in the instant
appeal.” The trial court, however, did make findings of fact and conclusions of law. What
is missing from the State’s motion is an identification of which findings and conclusions it
believes to be incomplete or ambiguous. If we heed Mendoza’s instruction that we should
not “presume, assume, or guess at what historical facts” the trial judge found, we likewise
should not presume, assume, or guess what findings might be “essential and potentially
dispositive” of the State’s yet-to-be-presented issues on appeal. Our powers as an
appellate court do not include clairvoyance.
Nevertheless, we find that this matter must be abated and remanded for a different
reason: the trial court’s order does not say what evidence is being suppressed. LeBlanc’s
motion sought to suppress “the State’s propounded [Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus] test
results,” “the blood results in this case,” and “any tangible evidence seized in connection
with this case that was seized without probable cause or other lawful authority in violation
of” Defendant’s rights under numerous federal and state constitutional provisions. The
trial court’s May 24, 2022 order simply says that “said motion is hereby GRANTED in
whole.” What is missing from the trial court’s order is any identification of what evidence
is being suppressed. We are unable to determine whether the relevant evidence and law
supports the trial court’s order if we cannot distinguish the evidence being suppressed
from that which is not being suppressed. Under TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(b), we are required
3
to direct the trial court to correct remediable error that prevents the proper presentation
of the case to the court of appeals.
Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. Within
twenty days after this matter is remanded, the trial court shall modify the May 24, 2022
order to specifically identify the items of evidence and testimony that will not be admissible
at trial because of its suppression ruling. If the trial court believes that additional findings
of fact or conclusions of law are essential in light of this order, it shall make such findings
and conclusions at the time that it modifies its order. The court shall then file its modified
order, along with any findings of fact and conclusions of law and provide the State and
Appellee with a copy. Within twenty days after receipt of the modified order and any
findings or conclusions by the trial court, the State shall submit such documents to this
Court via a supplemental clerk’s record.
The State’s motion to remand for additional findings and conclusions is denied
without prejudice to refiling. The parties’ briefing deadlines are suspended until further
order of the Court.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
4