### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 328

- C R



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellant,

v.

CLINT SAENZ
, Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes 1 

### Order Per C u riam

This case is on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Appellant, the

State of Texas, appealed the trial court’s granting of a motion to suppress filed by

1 The Honorable Rose Vela, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in this decision because her term of offic e expired on December 31, 2012. In accordance with the appellate rules, she was replaced on panel by Ju stice Gregory T. Perkes. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 41.1(a).2

a ppellee, Clint Saenz, who was indicted on one count of driving while intoxicated. See

T E X

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2011). Saenz moved to suppress certain

oral statements made to police, the trial court granted the motion, and we affirmed. See

State v. Saenz

, No. 13

- 11

- 00328

- CR, 2012 WL 7783406 , at *1

– 5 (Tex. App.

— Corpus

Chris ti Dec. 28, 2012) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The c ourt of c riminal

a ppeals reversed, holding , among other things, that while our “ ultimate legal conclusion ”

that Saenz was in custody at the time he made the challenged statements “may

be

. . . correct ,” we erred “ in attempting to reach that legal conclusion in the absence of

adequate fact

- findings from the trial court .” State v. Saenz , 411 S.W.3d 488 , 498 & n.7

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013) . The court of criminal appeals remanded the cause to th is Court

for abatement to the trial court for more complete findings of fact. Id. at 498. We then

abated the appeal on December 17, 2013, and remanded to the trial court for more

complete findings of fact. We specifically ordered the trial court to ente r findings as to:

(1) whether Officer Bintliff told Saenz that he was not free to leave ; and (2) how long

Saenz was inside the police car before he made the challenged statements to Officer

Sanders

. The trial court made the following supplemental findings of fact:

1. The Court finds that these findings are supported by credible evidence. The Court makes no gene ral credibility determinations.

2. Neither Officer Bintliff nor Officer San ders read the statutory Miranda warnings prior to question [ing] Mr. Saenz.

3. Mr. Saenz was instructed to tu rn off his vehicle, was placed in the back of Officer B[]i ntliff ’ s police car, and was ins tructed by Officer Bintliff not to leave. [Record citations omitted]

4. No officer advised Mr. Saenz that he was free to leave at any tim e prior to or during his interrogation.3

5. Officer Bintliff approached Mr. Saenz shortly after 2:13 a.m. Officer Sanders was dispatched at 2:25 a.m., arri ving some time after. The Court finds that Mr. Saenz was in custody for approximately 20 minutes prior to his interrogation by Officer Sanders.

6. A reasonable person, under these circumstances, would have b elieved he had been arrested during the time of his interrogation.

7. Officer Bintliff’ s manifestation of his intent to arrest Mr. Saenz was made when he ph ysically placed Mr. Saenz in his police car and verbally told him not to leave. Officer Bintliff tes tified he believed Mr. Saenz was intoxicated before placing Mr. Saenz i n his police car and called for a DWI enforcement officer.

The State has filed an o bjection to the supplemental findings, asserting that they

are inadequate because: (1) though the trial court found that Saenz was “in custody for

approximately 20 minutes prior to his interrogation,” it did not make a finding as to how

long Saenz was in the police car prior to his interrogation; (2) there was no finding as to

whether the officers told Saenz to wait while they continued investigating, and ( 3 ) the trial

court did not make any “general credibility determinations” regarding the officers’

test imony. We agree in part. The trial court was under no obligation to make “general

credibility determinations” as to each officer’s testimony. See Baird v. State , 398 S.W.3d

220, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (noting that, at a suppression hearing, “ a trial judge is

free to believe or disbelieve any part of the testimony as he sees fit”). However, findings

as to the specific issues identified by the State

— i.e., how long Saenz was in the police

car before being questioned and whether the officers told him to wait whil e they continued

investigating

— are necessary to our evaluation of the circu mstances surrounding the

case. We find that the supplemental findings of fact entered by the trial court are

inadequate because they failed to address these specif ic issues.

Accordingly, we hereby REMAND this cause to the trial court for entry of additional4

supplemental findings of fact as to: (1) how long Saenz was in the police car before

Officer Sanders began interrogating him; and (2) whether either officer tol d Saenz to wait

in the police car while they continued investigating. The trial court shall make its finding s,

as ordered herein, within FIFTEEN days from the date of this order. Furthermore, the

trial court shall cause a supplemental clerk’s record to b e filed with the Clerk of this Court

within THIRTY days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 7 th day of February, 2014.