### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00153- CR
The State of Texas, App ellant

v. F rances A nita Robin son, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2013 -26 7, H ONO RAB LE R. B RUCE B OY ER, JUDGE P RESIDING

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 P ER CURIAM

Appellee Fr ance s Anita Robinson filed a motion to suppress evidence in the above

cause , which the district court g rante d following a hear ing. The State subsequently filed a notice of appea l, along with a reque st for finding s of fac t and co n cl u s i o n s o f law. Howeve r, befor e any such finding s were filed, the trial rec ord was filed i n this Court. Acc ording ly , the re cord c ontains

no finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. The State has now filed a motion to abate the appea l and

rema nd the ca use to the district court f

or entry of its findings of

fac ts and conc lusions of law. 1

Acc ording to the State, the district court attempted to file finding s of fac t and conclusions 1 of law on April 17, 2015, afte r the trial rec ord had been filed in this Court. The Court of Criminal Appea ls has held that once the trial rec ord has been filed with the appellate court, “the trial court no longe r has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case .” Gree n v. State , 906 S.W .2d 937, 939-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). After the t rial court has l ost jurisdiction, any fi ndings of fac t and conclusions of l aw that it attempts to file are “null and void.” Id

. Consequently , when the trial court is require d to file finding s but has l ost jurisdiction to do so, “[t] he proper way to revive the trial cour t’s authority to take a ction is by

abate ment.” Id . at 940 n.4.The Court of Criminal Appea ls has held that “upon the reque st of the losing party on

a motion to suppress evidenc e, the trial court shall state its essential finding s,” which the high court define d as “finding s of fac t and conclusions of law adequate to provide an ap p ell ate court with a basis upon which to revie w the trial court’s application of the law to the fac ts.” These finding s must 2 be “ade quate and complete, cover ing ever y potentially dispositi ve issue that might rea s o n ably be

s ai d t o h ave arisen in the course of the suppression proce eding s,” including “explicit cre dibilit y 3 deter mination[ s]” reg arding the witnesses who testified at the suppression hear in g . Wh e n th e r e cord 4 contains no such finding s, we are require d to abate the appea l and rema nd the cause to the trial court for e ntry of its “essential f

indings.” 5 Acc ording ly , we g rant the State’s motion. We abate the appea l and rema nd the cause to the district c ourt for entry of its finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. A supplemental cler k’s

rec ord containing the finding s of fac t a nd conclusions of law shall be filed with this Court no later than J uly 20, 2015. This appea l will be reinstated onc e the suppleme ntal cler k’s re cord is filed. 6

State v. Cullen , 195 S.W .3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 2 State v. Elias , 339 S.W .3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 3 State v. Me ndoza , 365 S.W .3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). 4 See Elias , 339 S.W .3d at 676-77; Cullen , 195 S.W .3d at 698-700; see also Tex. R. App. 5 P. 44.4(a). The Stat e h as also filed a motion for extension of time to files its brief, reque sting an 6 ex t en s i o n of 30 day s from the date the appea l is reinstated in this Court. We g rant the State’s motion. 2I t is ordere d on J une 18, 2015.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland Abated a nd Remanded Filed: June 18, 2015 Do Not Publish

3