State v. Jennifer Lujan ( 2013 )

NO. 07-12-0068-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 29, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT
v.
JENNIFER LUJAN, APPELLEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;
NO. 28604; HONORABLE J. D. WAGNER, JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
DISSENTING OPINION
In its entirety, the order being appealed states, "The First Amended Motion to Suppress Statements of the Defendant, Jennifer Lujan is hereby: Granted." The trial court failed to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after receiving a timely request from the State. In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006), the Court of Criminal Appeals held, "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." (Emphasis added.) Because the majority purports to review the trial court's order on a "no evidence" basis (a theory not raised by Appellant) without knowing the factual or legal basis of its decision to exclude evidence obtained after Appellee was placed in custody, I respectfully dissent. Instead of reversing the trial court's order, I would abate and remand the proceeding for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not publish.