1

NO. 12-21-00059-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAY PAUL HARDY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jay Paul Hardy appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. In one issue, 

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Deputy Francisco Oviedo, a deputy with the Smith County Sherriff’s Office, was 

patrolling Farm to Market Road 756 (FM 756) in Smith County when he observed Appellant’s 

car traveling southbound. Oviedo saw Appellant change lanes into the right turn only lane 

toward Toll 49 and turn right onto the Toll 49 ramp without activating his turn signal. Oviedo 

then initiated a traffic stop. Following an investigation, Appellant was arrested for driving while 

intoxicated.

Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his 

detention, arguing that he was detained without reasonable suspicion of an offense in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. At a hearing on the motion, the State argued that Deputy Oviedo had 

reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant for failure to signal a lane change and failure to signal 

before turning.1

 After the hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Appellant 

violated the Texas Transportation Code when he failed to signal when changing lanes and failed 

1 See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104 (West 2011). 
2

to signal when turning onto the Toll 49 ramp from FM 756. Appellant subsequently pleaded 

“guilty,” and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for thirty days. This appeal 

followed.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

In Appellant’s sole issue, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to 

suppress because Deputy Oviedo lacked reasonable suspicion to justify his detention.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

A criminal defendant who alleges a Fourth Amendment violation bears the burden of 

producing some evidence that rebuts the presumption of proper police conduct. Amador v. 

State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A defendant meets his initial burden of 

proof by establishing that a search or seizure occurred without a warrant. Id. The burden then 

shifts to the state to prove that the search or seizure was nonetheless reasonable under the totality 

of the circumstances. Id. at 672-73.

Reasonable suspicion exists if a law enforcement officer has specific articulable facts

that, when combined with rational inferences from these facts, would lead him to reasonably 

suspect that a particular person has engaged, is engaging, or soon will be engaging in criminal 

activity. Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In determining whether 

reasonable suspicion existed, courts analyze the objective facts surrounding the detention, not the 

officer’s subjective reasons for it. Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 943-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1992). The state need not show with absolute certainty that an offense occurred to show 

reasonable suspicion. Garcia, 43 S.W.3d at 530.

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of 

review. Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Carmouche v. State, 10 

S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to

suppress is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Shepherd v. State, 273 

S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We give almost total deference to a trial court’s 

determination of historical facts, especially if those determinations turn on witness credibility or 

demeanor, and review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to facts not based on an 

evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008). When deciding a motion to suppress evidence, a trial court is the exclusive trier of fact 
3

and judge of the witnesses’ credibility. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2002). Accordingly, a trial court may choose to believe or disbelieve all or any part of a 

witness’s testimony. See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

We review de novo whether the totality of the circumstances is sufficient to support an 

officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Cortez, 543 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2018). We uphold a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under any legal 

theory supported by the facts. Alford v. State, 400 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Analysis

At the suppression hearing, Deputy Oviedo testified that he was on patrol on October 31, 

2019. He conducted a traffic stop on a silver Silverado because he observed “it failed to signal 

its turn from 756 to Toll 49.” He further testified that when he approached Appellant and told 

him why he conducted the stop, Appellant responded that he was aware he did not signal. A 

video recording taken from Deputy Oviedo’s vehicle was admitted into evidence at the hearing. 

The video shows Oviedo’s vehicle traveling on a two-lane road. Appellant’s vehicle is in front 

of Oviedo’s. After Appellant crosses the bridge over Toll 49, his vehicle changes lanes into the 

right turn only lane without signaling. Appellant’s vehicle then turns right onto the Toll 49 ramp 

without signaling. Appellant did not activate his turn signal until Oviedo conducted the traffic 

stop.

On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress 

because the record does not support its conclusion that Appellant violated Section 545.104 of the 

Transportation Code when he turned without activating his turn signal. He urges that the lane 

ended and he could not have continued straight, which is akin to a merging of two lanes and does 

not require a signal. See Mahaffey v. State, 316 S.W.3d 633, 638-39 (Tex. 2010). We disagree.

Section 545.104 of the Texas Transportation Code provides in pertinent part:

(a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 to indicate an intention to turn, 

change lanes, or start from a parked position.

(b) An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than 

the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104 (West 2011). The plain language of the statute requires the

driver to signal for a turn. It does not include exceptions for those situations in which there is 
4

only one direction to turn. Wehring v. State, 276 S.W.3d 666, 670 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 

2008, no pet.). Furthermore, if a turn is made from one street onto another, a signal is required. 

Id.; Williams v. State, No. 05-02-00314-CR, 2002 WL 31521373, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Nov. 14, 2002, pet. ref’d) (op., not designated for publication). It is undisputed that FM 756 and 

Toll 49 are separate roadways. Therefore, Appellant’s maneuver was not tantamount to merging 

lanes, and Appellant was required to signal before turning. 

Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that Deputy Oviedo had reasonable suspicion 

that Appellant violated Section 545.104, and, therefore, the trial court did not err by denying 

Appellant’s motion to suppress. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104(a); Garcia, 43 S.W.3d 

at 530; Garcia, 827 S.W.2d at 943-44; Wehring, 276 S.W.3d at 671. Because we must sustain 

the trial court’s ruling if it is correct under any applicable theory of law, we need not address the 

other alleged traffic violation. See Sanchez v. State, No. 04-18-00302-CR, 2019 WL 3229192, 

at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 17, 2019, no pet.) (op., designated for publication).

Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered February 9, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
5

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 9, 2022

NO. 12-21-00059-CR

JAY PAUL HARDY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001-80046-20)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of 

the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.