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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 205 -CR

The St at e of Te xa s , A ppe lla nt

v . Roy G uzm an, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 5 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. 7053 39 , HO NORAB LE NANCY WRI GHT H OH ENGARTEN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th e State a

pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r gra nti nga pp e lle e Roy

Gu zman’ s mo tio n to suppress evide nce. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 44.01(a )(5) (West 2007). We will abate the appea l for the pr epar ation and filing of finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.

Th e un de rl yingpr os e c uti on is f or dr ivi ngwh ile intoxic a te d. Gu zman mo ve d to suppress the incr iminating evide nce on the g round that it was the f ruit of an unlaw ful traf

fic stop. Austin Pol ice Of

fice r Nathan Scherbe k, the onl y witness at t he suppression hearing , testified that he stopped Guzman af

t er s ee i n g him spin hi s tires and lose tra ction as he e ntere d a downtown intersec tion. Scherbek sa id t h at he stopped Guzman bec ause he believed that Guzman had
acc eler ated at an imprudent speed and “exhibited a cce leration” in violation of th e t ra n s p ortation code. H e also testified that in light of all the c ircumstance s, he believedthat Guzman was2

intox icated. A t the conclusion of the he aring , the trial cour t gr anted th e m o t i o n to suppress and
re fu s edth e S t at e’ s re qu es tfo r afa ctfi n d i n g:
THE COURT: I ’m g oing to grant the motion to suppress . I t hink t h at State’s re liance upon the maxi mum speed require ment statute is mispl ace d, and that’s why I ’m g oing to g rant the motion. M S. M CK

A Y [p r o s e c u to r ]: Your Honor, could I g e t a r u li n g on the office r’s c r e d i b i l i ty? THE COURT: No. No. I ’m n o t go i n g t o ru l e o n t h e office r’s c r e d i b i l i ty. Upon the re quest of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidenc e, the tria l court must state its essential findings for the re cord; that is, it must m ake f indings of fac t and conc lusions of law a dequate to provide an a ppellate c ou rt wi t h a b asi s upon which to revie w the trial c ourt’s application of the law to the fac ts. State v. Cullen , 195 S.W .3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Although the court of c ri m inal appea ls stated that this rule was e ffe ctive fr om the date of the opinion, it not ed that appellate cour ts were alre ady

authorized to remand f

or finding s of fa ct and conclusions of lawso as to avoid havingto infer f acts fr om an unexplained ruling
. Id . at 698;
seeTe x. R. Ap p. P. 44. 4. Th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h a s si nc e re mand e d f or c omp lia nc e wi th Cullen in a ca se in which finding s were reque sted befor e Cullen was a nnounced. State v. Oage

s , No. PD-0957-05, 2006 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 2443, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 20, 2006).

We sustain the State’s point of err or complainingof t he trial court’s refusa l to make finding s of fa ct. The appea l is abate d and the trial cour t is inst ructe d to make and f ile finding s of3

fac t and conc lusions of law consistent with the holding in Cullen . A supplemental re cord containingthese finding s and conc lusions shall be filed no later tha n April 5, 2007.

__________________

_ _ _ ______________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Filed: F ebrua

ry 28, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh