### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00230
- CR

The State of Texas , Appellant

v. Dustin Grier Hartley , Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2020CR0749 , THE HONORABLE RANDAL C. GRAY , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER CURIAM The State of Texas appeals from an order of the trial court granting a motion to suppress filed by appellee Dust in Grier Hart ley , who was arrested for the offense of d riving while intox i cated following a traf fic stop

. The district court had granted the motion based on its conclu sion that the traffic stop was unlawful

. Upon the State ’ s request, t he trial court later made written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State has no w filed a motion to abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to make additional findings. For the following

reason s, we will grant the motion. “‘[U]pon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shal l state its essential findings.’” State v. Saenz , 411 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting State v. Elias , 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ). “‘[E]ssential findings’ mean2 ‘findings of fact and conclusions of law adequat e to provide a n appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.’” Id

. An appellate court may not “presume factual findings that may be dispositive in a case when a trial court’s findings are an inade quate basis up on which to make a legal conclusion and when those findings have been properly requested by a losing party.” Id

. (citing Elias , 339 S.W.3d at 674 ; State v. Mendoza , 365 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. C ri m. App. 2006) ). Instead, “an appellate court must abate for additional findings of fact when a party has requested findings of fact and the findings that are made by a trial court are so incomplete that an appellate court is unable to make a l egal deter min ation.” Id

. (citing Elias , 339 S.W.3d at 674 ; Mendoza , 365 S.W.3d at 673 ; Cullen , 195 S.W.3d at 699 ). “This requirement assures that appellate resolution of the suppression issue ‘is based on the reality of what happened [at the trial court le vel] rath er than on [appellate] assumptions that may be entirely fictitious.’” Elias , 339 S.W.3d at 674 (quoting Cullen , 195 S.W.3d at 699 ). In this case, the issue is whether the arresting officer s had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop on Hartley. Amo ng the evidence considered by the trial court at the suppression hearing was the recording of a 911 call in which the caller reported that he had observed Hartley driving recklessly on the road. However, the trial court made no findin gs of fact or conc lus ions of law regarding the 911 call , inc luding any findings on the specific information contained in th e call, whether th at information was relayed to the arresting officer s prior to the initiat ion of the traffic stop , and , if so, whether that informatio n w ould support a n officer ’ s reasonable belief that Hartley had committed a traffic offense

. Such findings are

“ essential ” to a reas onable

- suspicion determination in this case

. See State v. Cortez , 543 S.W.3d
198 , 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ( “ We review a re asonable suspicion determination by3 considering the totality of the circumstances. ” ) ; Ja ganathan v. State , 479 S.W.3d 244 , 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) ( “ Reasonable suspicion exists if the officer has ‘ specific articulable facts that, when combined with r ati onal inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably suspect that a particular pe rson has engaged or is (or soon will be) engaging in criminal activity. ’ ” (quoting Abney v. State , 394 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ). Accordingly, we gr ant the State ’ s motion , abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court to make additional fact findings and conclusions of law consistent with this order. See Elias , 339 S.W.3d at 676

- 77 ; see also Tex. R. App. 44.4. A supplemental clerk ’ s

reco rd containing the additional findings shall be filed with this Court by Jul y 1 9 , 2021

. This appeal will be reinstated after the supplemental clerk ’ s record is filed.

B efore Justices Go odwin, Triana, and Kelly Abated and Remanded Filed: June 1 8 , 2021 Do Not Publish