State v. Michael Lance Wood

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00839-CR
The State of Texas, Appellant
v.
Michael Lance Wood, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 78725, HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Following a traffic stop, Michael Lance Wood was arrested and charged with driving
while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.04. After being charged, Wood filed a motion to
suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The district court granted the motion after
convening a hearing. The State appealed the district court’s order and filed a motion requesting
the district court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law related to its ruling. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5). The record before this Court does not contain any findings of fact or
conclusions of law regarding the motion to suppress.
The Texas 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]” regarding the witnesses who testified at the
suppression hearing, 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 abate the appeal and remand the cause to the district court so that
it may make findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to its granting of Wood’s motion
to suppress. The district 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 April 29, 2019. See Tex. R.
App. P. 34.5(c). This appeal will be reinstated once the supplemental clerk’s record is filed.
It is so ordered March 29, 2019.
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Abated and Remanded
Filed: March 29, 2019
Do Not Publish
2