1 The Stat e did not file a b rief responding to Franco ’s arguments. 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00274-CR

John Milbur

n Fr anco, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW OF

COMAL COUNTY NO. 2000CR0743, HONORABLE DON B. MORGAN, JUDG E PRESIDING

A j ury f ound a ppel l an t John Mi l bur n Franco gui

l ty of dri vi ng w hi l e i ntoxi cated. See Tex . Pen . Code A

nn . § 49.04

(We st Supp . 2002) . The courtas se ss ed

pun i sh men t at i nc arc era ti on f or180 day s and a $2000 f ine , but suspend

ed i m pos i ti on of sente nc e a nd pl ac ed Fran co on com m un i ty supe rv is ion. In two po int s o f er r o r , Fr an co ur ge s t ha t t he co ur t er r ed by ad mit t ing in evi dence th e res ul ts of al coh ol con cen tra ti on an d f i el d s ob riety test s. 1 We will affi

rm t he co nvictio n. De pu ty Wel don Cam pbel l s to pped Franco’s

pic kup truck for a tr aff

ic violation on May 20, 2000. Based on his o bser vat ions a nd Fr anco ’s pe rfo rmance on t hre e field so briet y tes t s, t he o ffic er ar re st ed Fr anco for DWI. Fra nco late r t oo k a br eat h t est , w hich sho wed t hat he ha d a n alcohol conc en tration of 0 .22.2 The in form ation al le ged th at F ra n co was i n tox i ca ted un der b oth stat uto ry def

in itions: because he did no t have t he no rmal use of his ment al or physical facu lties by re aso n of t he i ntr oduc ti on of al coh ol i nto th e b ody an d b ec au se he ha d a n a l coh ol con centr ati on of 0.08 or more. Te x. Pen. Code An

n. § 49.01(2)(A), (B) (West Supp. 20 02) . T he jury was authorized to convict Fr an co o n bo t h a lleg at io ns an d r et ur ne d a ge ne r al v er di ct o f g ui lt y.

By his fir st po int o f er r o r , Fr an co co nt en ds t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed by o ve rrulin g h is m oti on to suppre ss th

e i ntoxi l y zer tes t re sult s. F ra nco ar gue s t hat he did no t kno wingly and vo lun t ar ily co ns en

t to the br ea th te st b ec au se

he wa s n ot ad moni sh ed reg ard i ng the f ul l ran geof sta tutor y con se qu en ce s th at f l ow f rom a ref us al to tak e th e te st. A per so n ar re st ed fo r a n offense ar ising ou t of a ct s allege d t o ha ve been comm itted wh ile operating a

mot or vehicle in a pu blic place w hile into xicat ed is d eemed t o ha ve con se n ted to su bmit sp ec i

mens of hi s breath or bloo d for alcohol concentrat ion anal ysi s. Te x. T ra nsp. Co de Ann. § 724.011 (West 19 99 ). A pers on aske d to s

ub m i t a specim en m ust be given

certa in admoni shm

ents. Id . § 7 24 . 01 5 ( We st Su pp . 20 02 ) . I f a p er so n’s co nse nt t o a b r ea t h t es t is in d uced by an offi cer’s missta t ement o f t he co nse qu en ce s flo win g fr o m a ref us al to take the tes t, th e c ons en

t i s n ot vol unta ry and the test resu

l t is i nadm i ssi bl e i n evi den ce. Erdman v. State , 86 1 S . W. 2d 89 0, 89 3- 94 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 3); State

v. Sells , 79 8 S. W.2d 865 , 86 7 (T ex. App .—Au st in 1990, no p et .) ; see Tex. Code Cri m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.23 (a) (W

est Sup p. 2002 ). As it re ad in Ma y 2000 , se ct ion 7 24. 015 re quir ed t hat Fra nco be informed t hat if he refuse d to giv

e a speci me n (1) the refusal

mi ght be adm

is si ble i n a sub sequent prosecution an d (2) his d r ive r ’s lice nse wo uld be au t o mat ica lly suspen ded for not less

than ni nety day s. Act of Jun

e 1,2 “A

person who driv

es a comm

ercia l m ot or vehicl e i

n thi s state is cons ide

red to have consented

. . . to the ta

ki ng of one or m ore s pe ci mens of t he pe rso n’s br eat h . . . f

or th e pur pos e of an al y sis to det er mine t he pe rso n’s alco hol co ncent ra t ion. ” T ex. Tr ansp . C od e Ann. § 522.10 2(a) ( West Supp. 2002) . Wh

en a person is asked to “subm it a speci me n unde r S ect ion 5 22. 102 ,” he must be to ld that a ref us al wi l l res ul t i n h i s b ei ng di sq ual i f i ed f rom driv in g a co mmercial mot or vehicle for at least one year. Id . § 522.103(a). I n 2001, se cti on 522 .10 2 w asam

en de d to e xpres sl

y sta te that i t an d s ec ti on 522 .10 3 a ppl y onl y to a p ers on w

ho i s stoppe d or

detai ne d wh i l e dri vi ng a com merci al vehi cle. Id . § 522 .10 2(c ). Fran

co’ s ca se, a

nd the other cases discussed i n thi s opin

ion, arose be fore the 2001 am en dm en t. 3 1997, 75th Leg., R.S ., ch . 1013, § 34, 199 7 Tex . Gen . Law s 368 6, 3698 (Tex . Tr ans. Co de Ann. § 724.015(1), (2) (A) (si

nce am ended)). Franco adm

its that he was

ad moni sh ed i n ac corda n ce wi th se cti on 724.015. He argues, however, that because h e hol ds a comm

ercia l dri ver’s l ic ense, he sho uld have b een ad moni sh ed th at a r efu sa l t o su bmit a s pe cime n w o uld r es ult i n h i s b ei ng di sq ual i f i ed f rom dr iving a c o mmer cia l mo t o rve hic le f or at l east one y

ear. SeeTex. Transp. Code An n. § 522.103(a) (West Sup p. 2 002 ); see also id . § 522.1 02(a). 2

Two o ther

co ur t s o f app eals have co nfro nt ed t he sa me co nt ent ion. The Fo rt W orth Courtof Appea

ls concl uded that sections

522.102 and 522.103 applie d only when a person i s arrested orde t ain ed wh ile driv

in g a comm ercia l v ehi cl e. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Chavez , 981 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Te x. App.—Fort Wort h 1998, no pet.). T hus, a com me rcial li cense h older who was detain ed wh ile driv

in g a noncom

me rcial veh ic le was not entitled to t he warn in gs contain ed i n s ec ti on 522.103. Id . T he Wac o C ou rt of Ap pea ls rea ched t he o ppo site co nclusio n. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Thomas , 985 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, no pet.) . That cou rt hel d th at a comm ercia l li cense h older sho uld have been g iven the sec t ion 5 22. 103 war nings eve n t hou gh he was4

detain ed while dr iving

a noncom

me rcial v eh i cl e, an d th at th e f ai l ur e to d o so re n dere d h

i s ref us al to sub m i t a spe ci men i nv olu ntary. Id . In bot h Chavez

and Thomas , t he driv

ers refused

to subm i t a spe ci men . Chavez , 981 S.W.2d at 451 ; Thomas , 98 5 S . W. 2d at 56 8. I t is re as on ab l e to co nclude , a s t he co ur t did in Thomas , t ha t a d r ive rca nno t kn o win gly a nd vo lun t ar ily r efu se t o su bmit a s pe cime n if he is no t t o ld t he full statutory cons eque nc es of ref usi ng. F ranco, howe

ver, agreed

t o su bmit a speci

me n. Thi s i s a cri

tical factual dist inctio n. E ven if sect ions 522.10 2 an d 522.1 03, as

they read b ef ore the 2001 amendmen

ts, applie d t o F ra nco , t he officer’s failure t o a dmo nish him pur sua nt t o s ect ion 5 22. 103 co uld no t have r en de r ed his ag r ee men t t o t ak e t he t es t inv o lunt ar y.

In Erdman , a driv

er agreed t o t ake a br eat h t est aft er being er ro neo usly to ld t hat if he refuse d h e w oul d b e ch arge d w i

th DW I and i m medi atel y i nc arce rated. Erdman , 861 S.W.2d at 891. Simil ar ly, the dr iver in Sells

agr eed t o t ake a br eat h t est aft er being er ro neo usly informed t hat if he refuse d he “

would automatic ally

be ch arged and i

ncarcerated.” Sells , 798 S.W.2d at 866. In b oth cases, the driv

er’s agreem

ent was i nduced or coercedby the off ic er havi ng erroneously

exaggerated t he cons eque

nc es of a ref usa l . Erdman , 86 1 S. W.2d at 894 ; Sells , 7 98 S .W. 2d a t 867 . I n t he case be f ore us, Franco wa s t o ld that if he refused t o submit a specimen of breath o r blood , his driver’s li censewould be suspended for at least nin ety days. A

rguably , he also sh

oul d h av e b een told th at a refusa l would resul

t in the l oss of his comm

ercia l dri vi ng pri vi le ge f or at l east one y

ear. But Franco ca nn ot pla us ibly ar gu e t ha t his deci si on to take the breath test was i nduced or coerced by

the off ic er understating

the consequen

ces of a ref

usal . If Fran

co was wil

li ng to t ake a breath test aft er be ing t o ld5

that he wo uld lose h

is driv er’s l ic ense f or nin ety day s i f h e refus ed, it logical

ly fol lows that he wo uld have been wil li ng to t ake the test if

he h ad al so been told that

a refus al would resul

t in the a dditional l oss of his com merci al l i cense f or one y ear. We hold that Fran

co has not shown that hi s agreem ent to t ake the in

to xi ly zer test was in duced or co er ced by the off

ic er’s al le ged miss t at eme nt o f t he st at ut o ry co nse qu en ce s o f a r efu sa l. Point of error one is ove

rruled. In hi s s eco nd po int of e rr or , Fr anco ur ges t hat t he co ur t er ro neo usly admitt ed t he re su l ts o f t he ho r izo nt al g az e n yst ag mus ( HG N) t es t be ca us e it wa s no t sho wn t o ha ve be en pr o pe r ly adm in is tered. See Emerson v. State , 88 0 S. W.2d 759 , 76 8-7 0 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 94) ; O’Connel l
v. S tate , 17 S. W.3d 746 , 74 7-4 8 (T ex. App .—Au st in 2000, no p et .) ; see also Kelly v . State , 8 2 4 S.W.2d 568 , 5 73 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 992 ). As previously noted, t he j ury returned a general verdict of gui l ty af ter b ei ng i ns tructed on both s tatutor y de f i ni ti ons of into xicat ion. T he t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly adm itted evi dence that

Franco’s a

lc ohol concen

trat ion was 0. 22 , we ll abo ve t he st at ut o ry t hr es ho ld f orin to xi cation per se. Tex. Pen . Code Ann . § 49.01(2)(B). Wi th regard to the

“nor mal us e of facul ties” def in ition, the jury

heard, i n addi ti on to the HG N te st re sul

ts, th e of f i cer’ s des cri

ption of Franco ’s in

to xicated behav

ior and s awa video t ape of Fr anco per for ming the ro adside sobriety

test s. The jury al so saw a vi

deotape o f F

ranco at the polic e station f oll owing his ar re st . U nder t he circumstances, an

y er ror i n th e adm i ss i on of th e H GN test re su l ts did n ot aff ect Franco’s s

ubstanti al righ ts. Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); Tex. R. Evi d. 103(a). Po in t o f error two is

overruled.6 The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: April 4, 2002 Publish