State of Texas v. May, Donna Lynn ( 2006 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. PD-1490-05

---

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

DONNA LYNN MAY

---

ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS BEXAR COUNTY

---

  Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated. The trial court granted her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her stop and arrest. The State requested that the trial court enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the trial court declined to do so. The Court of Appeals refused to order the trial court to enter findings and conclusions, and affirmed the trial court's order. May v. State, No. 04-04-00639-CR (Tex. App. -- San Antonio 2005). The Court of Appeals found that the trial court must have disbelieved the State's version of the evidence, as it was entitled to do, and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellant's motion to suppress.   

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review contending the Court of Appeals' decision thwarted its right to appeal, in that an order granting a motion to suppress was reviewed based on facts that were presumed in spite of its timely request for findings and conclusions. The State claims that when those findings and conclusions are necessary to provide review of a trial court's determination to grant such a motion, a trial court errs in refusing to enter them because article 44.01 expressly grants the State the right to appeal the determination.  

Recently, in Cullen v. State, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. No. PD-984-05, delivered June 28, 2006), we addressed the same issue. We concluded that upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, 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. Id. slip op. at 8. We further found that Rule 44.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes a court of appeals to remand the case to the trial court so that the reviewing court is not forced to infer facts from an unexplained ruling. Id. slip op. at 7-8. The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Cullen. Accordingly, we grant the State's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of our opinion in Cullen.

Delivered: September 13, 2006

Do Not Publish