### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00029
- CR

Michael Wayne Williams , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY NO. 21282, THE HONORABLE RANDALL J. HOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM Appellant Mich ael Wayne Williams , who was arr est ed for driving while into xicated (DWI) , second offense, appeals the trial c ourt’s order denying his motion to suppress.
See Tex. Penal Code § 49 .04( a). After ruling on the mo tion, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on Williams ’ request

. After reviewing the trial court ’ s findings and conclusions , we abated the ap peal and r emanded the cause to t he trial court for additio n al findings of fact and conclusions of law.
See Williams v. State , No. 03-21-00029- CR, 2022 WL 45 87217, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept. 29, 2022, no pet. h. ) (per curi am) ( mem. op., not designat ed for publication). We observed that the parties ’ arguments on appeal concern :2 issues involving the legality of the interaction and arrest, including whether the initial contact was consensual or amounted to an investigative d etention; whether a reasonable person in Williams’ position would have felt free to leave; if the officer detained Williams, whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for the detention; whether at the time of Williams’ arrest officers had probable cause to arrest him; whether Williams was subject to a custodial interrogation and, if so, whet h er the officer provided him with the required constitutional and statutory warnings; and whether during the initial interaction the officer was acting pursuant to hi s community

- caretaking function.

Id. at *2. We explained that while the t rial court , in i t s findings and conclusio ns , ha d “ provided a brief and limited narrative of the facts and c oncluded that the ‘ arresting officer ’ s actions met the minimal level of objective justification and reasonable suspicion for making the stop , ’ ” it had not made “ f act u al findings concerning numerous significant issues raised by the evidence at the hearing

— many of which were contested

. ” Id

. We also listed several of the unaddressed , po tentially dispositive issues to assist the trial court in making its additional find i ng s and conclusions. Id. ; see State v. Copeland , 501 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (noting trial court has obligation to ensure findings cover “ every potentially dispositive issue that might

reas onably be said to have arisen in the course of the su ppression proceedings ” (quo ting State

v. Elias , 339 S.W.3d 667, 674, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ) ).
We have received add itional findings of fact and conclu sio ns of law that the trial
court en tered in response to our abatement order. Although the tri al court addressed many of the deficiencies that we highlight ed in the order, it still failed to address certain essential findings and concl usio ns “adequate for [this Court] to decide the lega l determinations in the case.” See
State v. Saenz , 411 S.W.3d 488 , 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also Copeland , 501 S.W.3d at 613 (“‘Essential findings’ means that ‘the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions3 of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial co urt ’s application of the law to the facts.’ ” (quoting Elias , 339 S.W.3d at 674, 676 )). Among the finding s re quested by th is Court that are still missing from t hose entered by the trial court are : (1) whether dispatch relayed informat ion about Williams ’ veh icle ’ s driving to officers; (2) whether Betty Cluck witnesse d Williams driving; (3) whether Officer Bowman observed Williams ’ a ctivated brake lights; ( 4) whether either o fficer observed ke ys in the i gnition of Williams ’ vehicle; (5) whether there was an y e vidence indicating that Williams was in need of assistance o r medical attention when Officer Bo wman approach ed Williams ’ vehicle ; (6) whether Will iams told Officer Bo wman t hat he did not want to speak wit h him; and (7 ) whether Willia ms ’ arr est

was warr a ntl ess. Further more, the trial court did not address se ve ral of the conclusions of law that we identified as essential to provide us with a basis for reviewing the trial court ’ s suppression ruling, including: (1) whether a reasonable person in Williams’ po sition would have felt free to leave during the interaction with Officer Bowman ; (2 ) whether the State ’ s assertion at the suppression heari ng that it was willing to concede that Officer Bo wman lacked reasonable suspicion foreclosed t he trial court from rul i ng on that basis; (3 ) whether William s ’ detention was justified by the officer s ’ community

- caretaking function; (4) whether Williams was subject to a custodial interrogation; and (5) if he was , whether he received the required const itutional and statut ory warnings beforehand

. Accordingly, we again abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to make additional “findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide [this Court] with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s appli cati on of the law to the facts.” See State

v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex . Crim. App. 2006) ; see also Saenz , 411 S.W.3d at 495 (instructing that “an appellate court must abate for additional findings of fact when a party has4 reque sted findings of fac t an d the findings that are made by a trial court are so inc omplete that an appellate court is unable to make a legal determination”). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the additional findings of fact and conclusions of law shal l be filed with this Cou rt by December 12 , 202 2

. This appeal will be reinstated afte r the supplemental clerk’s record is filed. It is so ordered on Nov ember 30 , 202 2.

Before Chief J ustice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith Abated and Remanded Filed: November 30, 2022 Do Not Publish