Case ID: sw2d_811/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. John Patrick VAN NATTA, Appellee.
    No. 532-91.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
    July 3, 1991.
    Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and David K. Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Michael Berger, Fort Worth, for appel-lee.
    Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellee was arrested and charged with the offense of driving while intoxicated. After a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Van Natta, 805 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth, 1991).

The State raises five grounds for review. As is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). With this understanding, we refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review.

McCORMICK, P.J., and BAIRD, J., would grant.