### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 322 -CR

Ca r los F lor e s Hi r ac he ta , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2000 -00 6 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Carlos F lores Hira cheta pleade d g uilty b ef

o re a jury

to intox ication manslaug hter a

nd ag g ravated assault. See Tex. P en. C ode Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2006), § 49.07 (West 2003). After

hear ing e vidence , the jury assessed punishment at fifteen y ear s’ imprisonment
and a $5 ,0 00 fi ne fo r the mans la ug hte r and te n y e a

rs ’ imp ri so nme nt and a $5 ,0 00 fi ne fo r t he a ssa ult , and re commended that the latter punishm ent be probate d. The only issue on appea l is whether the trial court err ed by overr

uling appellant’ s pretria l motion to suppress evidenc e. F inding no e rror , we aff irm the judg ment of convic tion.

At about 10:30 p.m. on Aug ust 19, 1999, appellant wa s driving w est in his Pont iac
on c ounty ro a d 2 66 in C a ldw e ll Co un ty . With h im as a pas sen ge r w a s h is f ri e nd , Jua n Sa lin a s. Whe re the c ounty

ro a d inter se c ts w ithstate highw ay 80 , s top sig ns re qu ir e ve hic le s o n th e c ounty road to y ield to vehicles on the larg er state highw ay . Appellant stopped at the intersec tion, but then2

beg an to drive a cross hig hway 80 and i n t o t h e path of a southbound Ford be ing dr iven by Marina J imenez. J imenez ha d no opportunity to stop or otherwise avoid colliding w ith appellant. Her For d str uc k th e pa sse ng e r s ide of a pp e lla nt’ s Po nti a c , f

a ta lly inj ur ingSa lin a s. Appellant wa s transported to Bra ckenr idge Hospital in Austin for treatment. There , at 12:20 a.m., a sample of appe llant’s blood was dra wn and teste d for a lcohol conce ntration at the order of one of

the treating phy sicians. The te st showed an alcohol conc entration of 0.21. At 1:05 a.m., a sec ond sample of appellant’ s blood was take n pursuant to transpor tation code se ction 724.012(b). Te x . Transp. Code Ann. § 724.012(b) (West Supp. 2006). A test of this sample showed an alc ohol conce ntration of 0.18.

Ap pe lla nt m ov e d to su

pp re ss t he re su lts of

bo th b loo d te sts . He argue d that th e fi rs t blood draw violate d his Fourth Amendme nt rig hts under Ferguson v. City of Char leston , 5 32 U. S. 67, 84-86 (2001) (holding that state hospi tal’s performanc e of diag nostic test to obtain evidence of patient’s criminal conduc t for law e nforc ement purpose s is unreasona ble sea rch if patient has not consente d to proce dure) . He c halleng ed the se cond blood dr aw on the g round that the police did not have a reas on abl e be lie f t hat th e c oll isi on

oc c ur re d a s a re su lt o f a

pp e lla nt’ s d ri vin g wh ile intox icated. Se e Ba dge tt v . S tate , 42 S.W .3d 136, 139 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 1 ) (h o l d ing that
rea sonable be lief that ac cident occ urre d as re sult of intox ication offe nse, re quired by section 724.012(b) , must be based on more than mere fac t of acc ident and defe ndant’s intox ication). F oll ow inga

pr e tr ia l hea

ri ng , the tr ia l c ourt

ov e rr ule d th e mot ion

on bo th gro un ds . In h is b ri e f t o th is Court , a pp e lla nt a g a in u rg e s th a t se c tio n 7 24 .0 12 (b ) w a s v iol a te d, but he do e s n ot b ri ngfo rw ard his Ferguson argument. Be cause appellant raises m ix ed questions of law a nd fac t that do not turn on3

c r e d ib il it y , w e c o n d

u c t a d e n o v o revie w. Guz man v. Sta te , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Section 724.012(b) pe rmits, indeed re quires, that a specimen of a per son’s breath or blood be taken involuntar ily if (1) the re h as been a

life-thre ateningacc ident involving a motor vehicle or

water cra ft, (2) the person ha s been a rre sted for an i n t o x i ca t ion offense involving the operation of the motor vehicle or water cra ft, and (3) the ar

restingoffice r re asonably believes that the
a c c ide nt occ ur

re d a s a re su lt o f t

he of fe ns e . T e x. Tr ans p. Cod e Ann. § 7 24 .0 12 (b ); Ba dge tt , 42 S.W .3d at 138. In Ba dge tt , the question prese nted was whet h er ev i d en ce that a drive r wa s intox icated when a fata l acc ident occur red was alone sufficie nt to war rant a rea sonable be lief that the driver ’s intox ication ca used the a ccide nt. Ba dge tt , 42 S.W .3d at 139. T h e c o u rt o f c ri minal appea ls held that it was not sufficient. Instead, the statute r equire s “spec ific and articula ble fac ts of
causation” apar

t from the mere fac t of t he accident a nd the driver ’s intox ication. Id
. Th e c ourt sa id that an “ [a]r

tic ula ble be lie f c an r e su lt f

ro m any numbe r o f f

a cto rs; in clu di ng , b ut n ot l imi te d to witness interviews, c onclusions drawn f rom experience in combination with observation of the
acc ident scene , or deter

minations made by an ac cident re construction team.” Id . (footnote omitted). I n this case , Depa

rtment of Public Safety

Trooper s J esse De L eon and Ma rvin Conley
wer e dispatche d to the scene of the acc i d ent. B oth office rs testified that appe llant manifested sy mpt oms of

int oxic a tio n, a fa c t th a t w a s n ot d isp ute d b e low . D e L e on te sti fi e d th a t ba se d o n h is observations of the scene and the r eports of w itnesses—J imenez a nd Patricia Adams, the driver of a third ca r who witnesse d the ac cident—he concluded that the accident was cause d by appellant’ s failur e to yie ld

th e r ig h t- o f

- w ay to th e tr a f

f ic o nh igh w ay

8 0
. Co n le y

te s ti f ie d th a t a ppellant’s4

intox ication contributed to the acc ident beca use “the first thing it does is impair judg ment, messing with the mental fa cult ies, depth per ception, thing s like that, judgme nt and timing. And just from wh a t w e saw at th e a c c ide nt, a s f ar a s g ivi ngMs. Jime nez react io n ti me , h e pu lle d o ut at th e la st minute, givingher no c hance to take prope r eva sive ac tion.”

We hold that the troopers’ obse rvations of the a ccide nt scene and witness intervie ws g ave the m a re asonable belief, ba sed on spec ific and a rticulable f

acts, that the a ccide nt was c aused by appellant’ s intox ication while driving
. Se e id . at 139 n.1. Appellant’s c ontention that the office rs inf e rr e d c a us a tio n f ro m th e me re fa c t of

his int oxic a tio n is wi tho ut m e ri t. Neither DeL eon nor Conley

went to t h e h o s p ital with appellant. Instead, a fter lear ning that Salinas was dea d, DeL eon contacted his dispatcher and requested that an officer be sent to the hospital to obtain the mandatory blood sample. That off

icer was Trooper Br ian Bax ter, who testified that he wa s dispatched to the hospit al t o arr est appe llant and obtain the blood sample, whic h was dra wn by a hospital nurse. A

ppellant ar g ues that bec ause B axter was not an investig ating office r
and did no t sp e ak to De L e on

or Con le y , h e ha d n eithe r p ro ba ble c a us e to a rr e st n or a re a so na ble be lie f t hat th e of fe ns e c a us e d th e a c c ide nt. Th is a

rgume nt i s a lso wi tho ut m e ri t. Whe n a n a rr e st i s made pur suant to a police br oadca st, the test for probable cause is the sufficie ncy of the infor mation known to the offic er w ho made the br oadca st request. C r a n e v . Stat e , 7 8 6 S.W .2d 338, 346 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). De L e on ha d b oth pr ob a ble c a us e to ar re st ap pe lla

nt fo r a ch a

pte r 49 o ff

e ns e and a r easona

ble belief that the fatal acc ident occur red as a result of this offense. N o err or is shown. Se e Mc Br idev . S

tate , 94 6 S.W. 2d 10 0, 10 2 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 19 97 , pet . re f’ d) ; Mitchell v. Sta te , 821 S.W .2d 420, 425 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, pet. ref ’d).5 The point of er

ror is over

ruled a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Oc tober 24, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh