Carl Ruffino v. Tranum, Inc. D/B/A Tranum Auto Group & James E. Tranum ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-04-00282-CV

Carl Ruffino,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

Tranum, Inc. d/b/a

Tranum Auto Group and

James E. Tranum,

                                                                      Appellees

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 53172-CV

ORDER TO WRITE OFF FEES

          We render this order during our plenary power in this case.  Tex. R. App. P. 19.1(a).

          On May 18, 2005 this appeal was dismissed due to Ruffino’s failure to pay the filing fee or comply with the rules regarding proceeding as an indigent appellant.  See Ruffino v. Tranum, Inc., No. 10-04-00282-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3783 (Tex. App.—Waco, May 18, 2005, no pet. h.).

          Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing.  Tex. R. App. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to Tex. R. App. P., Order Regarding Fees (July 21, 1998).  See also Tex. R. App. P. 5; 10th Tex. App. (Waco) Loc. R. 6; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207(b) and 51.901 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).  Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case.  Tex. R. App. P. 2. 

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

Fees written off

Order issued and filed July 13, 2005

[CV06]

tino'>            Acton testified at the hearing.  She stated that she hates needles and did not want her blood drawn and did not consent to any blood being drawn.  She agreed that the blood was taken over her refusal and objection.  She also stated that she refused the IV and the sutures because of her fear of needles.

            In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.  State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  When a trial court makes fact findings, the appellate court determines whether the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling) supports these fact findings.  Id at 818, 819.  The appellate court then reviews the trial court's legal ruling de novo unless the trial court's supported-by-the-record explicit fact findings are also dispositive of the legal ruling.  Id.

            The trial court found that Acton did not consent to the drawing of her blood.  There is ample evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, to support that finding.  The trial court’s finding is also dispositive of the legal ruling. Accordingly, the State’s sole issue is overruled.

Conclusion

            Having overruled the State’s issue, we affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the blood evidence.

                                                                        TOM GRAY

                                                                        Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Reyna, and

            Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 8, 2009

Do not publish

[CR25]