Haskell, Ronald Lee

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-77,091
RONALD LEE HASKELL, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 1434395
IN THE 351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam. M CC LURE, J., not participating.
ORDER
The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of
Appellant’s capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 351 st Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Cause No. 1434395, styled The State of Texas v. Ronald
Lee Haskell. On February 24, 2021, Appellant filed a motion requesting this Court to
abate the appeal and to “order the trial court to complete findings of fact and conclusions
Haskell – 2
of law pertaining to Appellant’s two denied motions to suppress.”1 See State v. Cullen,
195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)(holding that a trial court must make
findings when requested by the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence).
On March 10, 2021, without abating the case, we ordered the trial court to make
the requested findings and conclusions and the clerk to supplement the record with those
findings and conclusions within 30 days. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 34.5(c)(2). However, on
March 11, 2021, the State filed in this Court a “Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Remanding for Findings and Conclusions.” The State asserts that Judge George Powell,
who presided over Appellant’s trial, is “ineligible to serve as a visiting judge by
assignment at this time to issue any additional factual findings or legal conclusions
related to the suppression motions.” The State complains that Appellant “made no effort
to seek findings from the trial judge in the year and a half Judge Powell sat on the bench
and could have provided them other than asking one question about findings during the
hearing.” The State further contends that “[t]he judge to whom this case has been
remanded is in no better position to issue findings than this Court is because she too is
confined to the reporter’s record, motions, and responses without having observed the
hearing.”
Having considered the State’s motion, we now stay the proceedings, and we order
1
Appellant specifically referred to his “Motion to Suppress Custodial Oral
Statements and All Evidence Derived from Any Unlawful Seizure of the Accused” and
“Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived from Unlawful Search Warrants A-G,” which the
trial court denied during a motions hearing on June 27, 2019.
Haskell – 3
both parties to brief the following issue:
Did Appellant’s failure to notify the trial court that findings were past due
while the trial judge who presided over the hearing still held his position
result in a forfeiture of Appellant’s right to findings under Cullen?
Briefs from both Appellant and the State are due in this Court within 30 days of the date
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021.
Do not publish