### NUM BER 13-07- 0049 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
TE XAS D EPA RT M ENTOF PU BL IC SA FE TY , A pp ellan t,
v. RA M ON ESC OBE DO, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 4 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez The Tex as Depa rt ment of Publi c Safety( “t he D epar tment” ) appeal s from a j udg ment direct ing i t t o resc ind i ts sus pensi on of Ramon Es cobed o’s ( “E sc obedo” ) dr iv er ’s l ic ense. The De par

tment ra is es tw o i ss ues on appeal: the admis si bil it y of the pol ic e repor

t and the existence of

substa nt ia l e viden ce to sup port th e ad min istrativ e susp ensio n. W e reverse and rein sta te t he admi nis trati v e dec is ion

.2 I. Back ground On A pr il 23, 2006, Joel Perez , an off-d uty H ida lg o C ounty

Sher iff’s D eputy , obs er v ed Esc obedo w eav ing his car on and off a ro ad, dr iv ing int o a pr iv ate d ri v ew ay , and fall ing i nto a ditch . Edinb urg police o f f icer A rnaldo Ysquierdo arriv ed at the sce ne sh ortlytherea f ter. Upo n hi s a rr iv al, Officer Y sq uie rd o obser

v ed that Esc obedo dis pla y ed s ig ns of into x ic ati on: Esc obedo h ad an unst eady bal ance, blo odsho t ey es, sl ur re d speec h, and a strong odor of alc ohol

. Esc obedo w as thereafter pla ced under arr estand transpo rt ed to the pol ic e s tati on. After bei ng as ked to s ubmita breath spec imen for anal y si s, Esc obedo refused. As a resul t of Escobed o’s purpor ted refusal to submi t a spec imen of his breath for anal y si s, the D epartment sus pended his l ic ense. See T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN . § 724.035 (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Escob edo then requested a h earing t o cont est the suspe nsion of his li cens e before an A dmini strati v e Law Ju dg e ( “A LJ” ). See i

d. § 724.041 ( Ver non Su pp. 200 7). The admin is trati v e hear ing oc cur re d on Oct ober 4, 2006. At the h ear ing , Es cobed o obje cted to the adm ission of of f icer Y squierdo’s sw orn po lice report, arguing that the report had a defecti v e not ar

y st amp, fail ed to i ncl ude a cr im in a l co m p la int , and fail ed to i ncl ude a book ing sh eet. The ALJ ov er ru led eac h of Esc obedo’ s o bje ct io n s and uphel d the
sus pensi on of his d riving l ic ense. See id. § 72 4.035 (V er non Su pp. 2 007) . Es cobed o subs eq uentl y

appeal ed th e ALJ ’s dec is ion to the H ida lg o C ounty C our t atLaw #4. T h e he a rin g be fo re th e co u n ty co u rtoc cu rre d on Ju ly 9, 20 0 7 . A t t h e he a rin g, Esc obedo a rg ued that the ALJ er re d in admit ti ng Officer Y sq uie rd o’s sw or n pol ic e repor t,
arg uin g that the re por

t had a defecti v e notar

y sta mp, faile d to i ncl ude a cr imi nal co mplai nt and boo king sheet, and w as not f iled w ithin five days of Escob edo ’s arrest. T he trial cou rtIn a p p e a l i n g th e s u s p e n s i o n o f h i s l i c e n s e to th e c o u n ty c o u rt, E s c o b e d o c o n fin e d h i s a rg u m e n ts 1 t o t he a dm i s s i bi l i t y of O ff i cer Y squi er do’ s pol i ce r epor t

. Because t he o r der r ev er si ng t he su spensi on o f E s c ob ed o’ s dri ver’ s l i c en s e st i pu l ates on l y t ha t “t he re w as a l ac k of evi de nc e s up po rt i ng t he ad m i ni s t rat i ve o rd e r,” w e a s s u m e , a s d o e s th e D e p a rtm e n t o n a p p e a l , th a t th e c o u n ty c o u rt a c c e p te d E s c o b e d o ’ s a rg u m e n ts t hat t he p ol i ce r epor t was pr ocedur al l y def ect i v e, and, t her ef or e, t hat i t was er r oneou sl y adm i t t ed i nt o ev i dence by t he A LJ

. N o fo rm al w ri t t en rul i ng on E s c ob ed o’ s ch al l en ge t o t he a dm i s s i on o f t he po l i c e rep ort ap pe ars i n th e re c o rd

. 3 took the matter

under adv is ement. On Jul y 18, 2007, the t ri al court e n te re d an o rd er re v ersi ng the sus pensi on of Es cobed o’s dr iv ing l ic ense, hol din g that“ there [w as] a l ack of subs tanti al ev ide nce suppo rt ing the admini stra ti ve ord er su spend ing the dr iv er l ic ense. ” This appeal ens ued. II. Disc ussi on T he Departm ent raises tw o issues on app eal. First, it cont end s tha t t h e t ri a l c o u rt
er re d i n rev ersi ng the admini strati v e decis ion , appare ntl y based on the ALJ’ s admis si on of the police repo rt. Seco nd, t he Dep artm ent argues thatthe trial court erred in fin ding a lack 1 of subs tanti al ev ide nce to s uppor t t he ALJ ’s dec is ion

. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew Admin is trati v e r uli ng s o n the admi ss ion or ex cl usi on of ev ide nce ar e re v iew ed unde r an abuse of

di sc re ti on s tandard. Tex. D ep’ t of Pu b. Sa fety v. St

ruve , 79 S.W .3d 7 96, 8 03 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999 , p e t d e nie d)

. The tes t for abuse of dis creti on i s w hether the a dmini strati v e r uli ng w as ar bit ra ry and unr eason abl e. Tex. Dep’ t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Jenni ngs , 1 S. W .3d 3 48, 3 51 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 1999, no p et.)

. Appeal s reg ardin g an a dmini strati v e s uspen si on of a dr iv er ’s l ice n se are r ev iew ed under the subs tanti al ev ide nce sta ndard. Mi re les v. T ex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety , 9 S.W .3d 128, 131 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Tex. Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v. H utc heson , 235 S. W .3d 3 12 ( Tex .App.
- Cor pus Chri sti 2007, pet. deni ed) ; see T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN . § 524 .04 1 (Verno n 20 07); T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 2001.17 4 (V er non 2000)

. In t he appl ic ati on of thi s s tandard, t he4

cour t may not su b stitu te i ts jud g ment for that of the admi nis trati v e l aw j udg e. Mi

re les , 9 S. W .3 d a t 131. The i ss ue for the rev iew ing co urt i s n ot w hether the ALJ’ s o rd er

w as correct, bu t w het her the record ref lec t s a r e ason able basis for the a dm inistrative judge’s
order

. Id. B. Adm issib ili ty

o f th e Po lice Rep or

t T h e De p a rt m e n t f ir s ta rg u e s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rte rr e d in re ve rs in g t h e a d m in is t ra t ive orde r b as ed o n th e AL J ’ s a dm i s s i on o f a de fec ti v e pe ac e offi c er ’ s r ep or t. A s p rev iously
n o t e d , Es c o b e d o a rg u e d t o t h e c o u n t y c o u rt t h a t o f f ic e r Ys qu ie rd o ’s re p o rth a d a d e fe c t ive notar y st amp, t hat t he POR faile d to inc lud e a cr imi nal compl ain t and boo ki ng sh eet, and that the P ORw as not fil ed w it hin fiv e day s o f Esco bedo’ s a rrest

. 1

. No ta ry S ta mp At t he admini strati v e hear ing , the ALJ ov er ru led Esc obedo’ s o bje cti on th at t he s eal at t he bot tom of th e f irs t p a ge of the peace off ic er ’s sw or n repor t fail ed to meet the
re q uirements of sec ti on 406. 013 of the g ov er nment c ode. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 406.013 (V er non 2005) . Speci fical ly , Esco bedo arg ued that the notar y se al w as “i ll eg ibl e.” W e find that the notar

y st amp di spl ay s t he foll ow ing : an aff ix ed s tamp, a rect ang ula r form w hic h i s n ot more tha n one inc h i n w idt h and 2 and a hal f inc hes in len gth , and the
w ords “ Notary Pub lic, Sta te of T exas” arou nd a star w ith f iv e poin ts, the n o t a ry p u blic’s
nam e, an d the date the com mission ex pires. W e f ind th e no tary stam p l e gi ble an d in compl ian ce w it h s ect ion 406. 013 of the g ov er nment c ode. See Id ; Tex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety
v. Raj achar , N o. 04 -0 5-0 0 3 5 4 -CV , 200 6 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 582, at * 4- 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–San An to ni o M arc h 1, 200 6, no p et .) ( de s i g na te d for p ub l i c at i on ) ( ho l di ng t ha t a no ta r y s ta mp5

w it h an ex pirati on dat e par ti all y i ll eg ibl e w as not i nv ali d)

. 2. Cri m ina l Com

pla int Esc obedo a ls o obj ect ed to t h e p o lice r epor t on the b asi s t hat i t fail ed to i ncl ude a
cr imi nal co mplai nt. On appeal , t he D epar tm e n t contends that the p oli ce re por t w as not
re q uired to i ncl ude a cr imi nal compl ain t, ci ti ng se cti on 724. 032 of the transpo rt ati on c ode. See T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN . § 724 .03 2 (Verno n 20 07). W e ag re e. Tex as law

prov ide s s peci fic p ro cedure s t o g uar antee the b asi c e lement s o f due proces s w hen sus p e n d ing a dr iv er ’s l ic ense. The t ra nspor tati on c ode s tates i f a dr iv er re fuses t o s ubmitto the t aki ng of a breath spec imen, th e a rre st in g off ic er mustse rv e the dr iv er w it h a no ti ce o f

lic ense sus pensi on and make a w ri tten re por t of the re fusal to t he d i r e c t o r o f t h e Te x a s D e p a rt me n t o f P u b l i c S a fe t y . S e e id . § 724.032 (a ). Se cti on 734.032 (b )( 2) prov ide s t hat t he repor t mus t c ontai n a c opy

of: (A) the ref usal sta tem ent requested und er Sectio n 72 4.0 31; or (B ) a s tatementsi g ned by the off ic er

thatthe person re fused to: (i ) submi t t o the tak ing of the req uest ed s peci men; and (i i) si g n the r eq uest ed s tatementunder Sec ti on 724. 031. Id . § 724 .03 2(b)(2). Th e stat ute , howev er, fails to include any requireme nt th at th e po lice
re por t mus t i ncl ude a copy

of the c ri minal co mplai nt. See i d. The ALJ w as cor re ct to
ov er ru le Esc obedo’ s o bje cti on on thi s mat ter

. 3. B ooki ng She et The peac e off ic er ’s sw or n repor t pur por ted t o i ncl ude a booki ng sheet, maki ng the
re por t a total of tw elv e pag es. At the count y cour t hea ri ng , Es cobed o arg ued t hat t he ALJ6

shou ld nothave a dm itted t he repo rt into evidence beca use th e repo rt fa iled to includ e this par ti cul ar doc ument. He reas oned that thi s inac curacy f ail ed to adeq uatel y

i denti fy him as the d efendant. It is w ell establ is hed that c ertai n defects i n an off ic er ’s sw or n repor t do not pr ecl ude admi ss ion of the repor t i nto e v ide nce. See Te x. Dep’ t of Pub

. Saf

ety v

. Pr uitt , 75 S.W .3d 6 34, 6 37- 38 ( Tex . Ap p–San Antoni o 2002, no pet.) (s w or n re por t admi ss ibl e ev en thoug h i t c it ed i ncor re ct sta tute) ; see a lso Ram os v
. Tex. Dep t. Pub. Saf ety , N o. 04 -0 5- 00389- CV , 200 6 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 583, a t *5 -8 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o M ar . 1, 2006 no pet .) (mem

. op. , not designat ed fo r pub lication) ( sw orn repo rt adm issible even tho u gh it li ste d i ncor re ct number

of pages and some attac hments did not name arrest ee) ; Tex. D ept. Pu b . S a fety v . Sal

ina s , No. 04-0 3-00 578 -CV, 200 4 T ex. App. LE XIS 4257 , at *4-5 ( T e x. App .–S an An ton io May1 2, 200 4, no pet .) (mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication) (report adm issible even thou gh of f icer’s nam e om itted f rom introduct oryportion of sw orn repo rt). Mo re ov er , any

abs ence of the book ing sh eet w il l go to the w eig ht of the ev ide nce, not it s admis si bil it y . See Adams v

. State , 985 S.W .2d 5 82, 5 84 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 199 8, pe t.
re f’d)

. W e concl ude the ALJ w as cor re ct in ov er ru li ng Es cobed o’s “ mis si ng book ing sh eet” obj ect ion

. 4. Filing w

ithin Five Days Esc obedo a ls o as ser

ted that the ALJ er re d in admit ti ng the pol ic e re por t bec ause the
re por t w as not fil ed w it h in f ive b u sin e ss day s a fter t he dat e of hi s a rrest , as r eq uired by
sec ti on 524. 011 of the transpo rt ati on c ode. See T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN . § 524.011 ( Ver non 2007)

. Esc obedo, how ev er , f ail ed to rais e this i ss ue befor e the ALJ

. By fail ing to ra is e the all eg ed non- compl ian ce w it h the fiv e- day ru le in the admini strati v e record, E sc obedo fai led to pr eser v e any co mplai nt on thi s i ss ue for appeal to the c ounty co urt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P.7

33.1; Tex. Dept . Pub . Safe ty v

. Guaj ar do , 970 S.W .2d 6 02, 6 06 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 199 8, no pet. ). W e the re fore find that the fiv e- day r eq uirement w as not a proper g ro und for set ti ng as ide the sus pensi on. In sum , w e f ind th at th e ALJ w as correct in overruling each of Escobe do’s objection s, and t hat t he pol ic e off ic er ’s sw or n repor t w as proper ly

admi tted by

the ALJ. The Dep artment’ s first is sue is su sta ine d. C. Su bst ant ial Ev id ence Hav ing fo und Of

f icer Y squierdo’s repo rt a dm issible, w e f urthe r find thatthe rep ort suppo rt ed th e ALJ ’s dec is ion to sus pend Esc obedo’ s dr iv er ’s li cens e. Thus, to t he extent that the c ounty

co urt’ s o rd e r st ip ula tes thatthe ALJ’ s d eci si on w as not s uppor ted b y subs tanti al ev ide nce, w e di sag re e. III. Conclus ion W e rev erse the c ounty

co urt’ s o rd er and re nder jud g ment re ins tati ng the ALJ’ s o rd er author iz ing the sus pensi on of Es cobed o’s dr iv er ’s l ic ense.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.