Ap pe lla nt’ s gro un ds fo r re vie w re a d a s f oll ow s: 1 1. Does the Amarillo Court of Appea ls’ decision in the petitioner’ s caseconflict 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1458- 09

TA W I N SPE N C E , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

LUBBOCK CO UNTY C OCHRAN , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS , J. , f i l ed a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h H ERVEY , J. , j oi ne d. OP I NI ON W e gr ant ed r evi ew t o r es ol ve a confl i ct bet w een cour t s of appe al s r egar di ng w het her

a lice n se p late m u st b e d isp layed a t th e f ro n t (e .g ., th e f

ro n t b u m p e r) o f

a c a r o r w h e th e r it is s u f f icie n t to b e d isp layed so m e w h e re e lse , su c h a s in sid e th e f ro n t w in d sh ield

. In th is 1Spence Pag e 2

with the Austin Court of Appeals’ de cision in State v. Losoya conce rningthe same iss ue , to wi t: thele g a lly pe rm iss ibl e loc atio n to dis pla y a ve hic le ’s lic e ns e plate? 2. Has the Amarillo Court of Appea ls decided a n important question of state law conce rningthe leg islative intent of the term “ front” a nd the per missibl e location of a ve hicle’s lice nse plate a s provided by Section 502.404(a) of the Te x as Transpor tation Code, which has not, but should be, settled by the Court of Crimi na l App e a ls? 3. Has the Amarillo Court of Appea ls departe d from the usua l course of judicial revie w where it has not addre ssed or re ndere d an opinion on petitioner’s orig inal complaint on appeal, to wit: the trial c ourt’s er ror in failing to g ive 38.23 instructions in the charg e? Sp e nc ev . S

tate , 296 S.W .3d 315 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009). 2 12 8 S. W.3 d 4 13 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 04 , p e t. re f’ d) ; se eals o Un ite d S tates v . S alinas, 3 6 6 5 F. S u p p . 2 d 7 1 7 , 7 2 6 (W

. D. T ex . 2 0 0 9 ) ( fo l l o wi n g Losoya ). cas e, t he A m ar i l l o C our t of A ppeal s hel d t hat t he fr ont l i cens e pl at e mustbe di s pl ay ed att he for emostar ea of

t he ca r . T he A us t i n C our t of A ppeal s , i n S t a t e v. Losoy a , hel d t hatt he

2 T exas T r ans por t at i on C ode does not r equi r e t he di s pl ay o f a li cens e pl at e on t he fr ont bum per . W e concl ude t hatt he pl ai n l anguage of Texas T r ans por t at i on C ode § 502. 404( a)

3 requi re s t ha t a l i c e ns e pl a t e be di s pl a y e d a tt he fo r e mos t pa r t orfr on t of a ve hi c l e , m ost

comm onl yt he fr ont bum per . W e al s o hol d t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not er r i n decl i ni ng t o gi ve an A r t i cl e 38. 23 j ur y i ns t r uct i on beca us e t her e w as no fac t ual di s put e for t he j ur yt o r es ol ve; t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f

o r t h e p r o p e r l o c a t i o n o f a l i c e n s e p l a t e i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , n o t f a c t . We t herefore affi rm t he judgm ent of t he co urtof ap peals

. I. A . B ack gro u n d F acts. A ppel l antw as char ged w i t h pos s es s i on of cocai ne t hat L ubbock P ol i ce O ffi cerShaneSpence Pag e 3

The ba g g ie containe d 233.4 grams of c ocaine . Appellant also ha d $1,400.00 in cash. 4 B led so e f

o u n d d u rin g a p a t-d o w n se a rc h f o r w e a p o n s af

ter h e sto p p e d a p p e llan t f o r tra f f ic viol at i on s. A ro u n d 1 :0 0 a .m . o n S e p tem b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , O f f ice r B led so e sa w a C h e v ro let Im p a la

w i t h “bl ue s par kl e pai nt w i t h w hi t e r aci ng s t r i pes and l ar ge w heel s ” par ked i n t he dr i vew ay
o f a k n o wn d r u g h o u s e . Th e o f f i c e r c i r c l e d t h e b l o c k , a n d , a s h e a p p r o a c h e d t h e hous e a
s econd t i m e, he s aw t he I m pal a bac ki ng out . A s O ffi cerB l eds oe dr ove pas t t he I m pal a, he

s aw t hatt her e w as no fr ont l i ce n se pl at e on i t . T he I m pal a “ha d a s i l verchr om e l ooki ng decor at i ve pl at e on t he fr ont , i t di dn’ t have a l i cens e pl at e on t he fr ont . ” T he off i cert es t i fi ed t hat he p u l l e d a p p e l l a n t o v e r f o r t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e v i o l a t i o n a n d f o r i l l e g a l l y p a r k i n g i n t he d ri v e w a yb yb lo c k in g th e s id e w a lk

. O ffi cer B l eds oe s ai d t hat , as he “appr oache d t he vehi cl e, [he] obs er ved t he [l i cens e] p late sittin g in th e w in d sh ield .” B e f o re th e o f

f ice r c o u ld e x p lain th e re a so n f o r th e tra f

f ic

s t o p , ap p ell antt ol d O ffi cerB l eds oe t hat“he a l r eadyknew w hy , fort he l i cens e pl at e, and advi s ed me t hathe .

. . had j us t got t en a t i cket

. . . for t he same vi ol at i on. ” B eca us e appe l l ant

c o u ld n o t p ro d u c e a d riv e r’s lice n se , O f f ice r B led so e a sk e d h im to ste p o u t o f th e c a r w h ile he c h e c k e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s l i c e n s e f o r warr a n t s . W h i l e d o i n g a r o u t i n e p a t - d o wn s e a r ch, t he offi cerfel t a bul ge, w hi ch he be l i eved t o be drugs , i n t he s pace bet w een a ppel l ant ’ s cr ot ch and bel t . H e pl ace d appel l anti n t he bac k of hi s pat r ol carand re co v ered t he baggi e of

coca i ne af

t era bac kup offi cerar r i ved. 4Spence Pag e 4

Section 545.302(a) (2) provides in releva nt part that: “An ope rator ma y not stop, stand, 5 or par k a vehic le . . . on a sidew alk.” The trial judg e per

haps mea nt “no fa ctual dispute” rather than “no leg al dispute.” See 6 Ma dd e n v . S tate , 2 42 S.W. 3d

50 4, 51 0- 11 & n. 15 (Art . 3 8. 23 re qu ir e s a jur y ins tr uc tio n o nly

if the reis a g e nu inedis pute a

bo ut a mate ri a l f

a c t th at is e sse nti a l to thee xiste nc e of re a so na ble suspicion or probablecause ). A ppel l antt es t i fi ed att r i al and di s put ed t he vehi cl e vi ol at i ons . A ppel l antdeni ed par ki ng on t he s i dew al k and expl ai ned t h at “ m y ca r w as par ked r i ght behi nd [t he h o m e o w n e r’s c a r], so th e re w o u ld b e n o re a so n f o r m e to b e o u t h e re w h e re I w o u ld h a v e to obs t r uct t he s i dew al k i n any ki nd of w ay . ” A ppel l ants t at ed t hathi s fr ontl i cens e pl at e w as “al l t he w ayup i n fr ont of t he fr ont w i nds hi el d” and, i n hi s opi ni on, i t w as ver yvi s i bl e fr om t he s t r eet . H e al s o confi r m ed hi s i ni t i al conver s at i on w i t h O ffi cer B l eds oe. “A s s oon as he had ca m e t o t he car , I t ol d hi m –beca us e I t hought t hat ’ s w hat he had pul l ed me overfor , for th e lic e n s e p la te s . . . I l e t h im k n o w . . . th e lic e n s e p la te is ri g h t h e re . . . u p in th e w in d o w .” A t t he cl os e of evi dence , appel l ant ’ s couns el obj ect ed t o t he j ur ychar ge and pr ovi ded tw o p ro p o se d in stru c tio n s: F irst, h e re q u e ste d th a t th e ju ryb e in stru c ted th a t “it is n o t a

v io latio n o f

[ S e c tio n 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a )] o f th e T ra n sp o rta tio n C o d e to h a v e a f ro n t lice n se p late in t he fr ont w i nds hi el d. ” Second, he r eques t ed an arti cle 38. 23 j ur yi ns t r uct i on on T r ans por t at i on C ode § 545. 302 becaus e of the fa ctual di s put e of w het herappel l antw as 5 p ark ed o n the s idew alk. T h e t ri al jud g e de n ied bo th r eq u ests, rea so n ing that “if the re’s m o re t han one r eas on for a s t op, and t he C our t concl udes t hat t her e i s no l egal di s put e as to that

s to p , th e n th e re s h o u ld n o t b e a 3 8 .2 3 is s u e s u b m itte d .” 6Spence Pag e 5

128 S.W .3d 413 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. ref ’d). 7 Id. at 416. 8 Spence , 296 S.W .3d at 318. 9 T he j ur y found appel l ant gui l t y of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o deli v er a cont r ol l ed

s ubs t ance w ei ghi ng bet w een 200 a nd 400 gr ams. A ppel l antpl ed t r ue t o a pr evi o u s dr ug convi ct i on, and t he t r i al j udge s ent ence d hi m t o 60 y ear s i n pr i s on. B
. The C our t of

A ppe al s D e c i s i on. O n ap p ea l, ap p ell an t arg u ed that the tri al co u rterred in d en y ing h is art icl e 3 8
. 2 3 jury i ns t r uct i on. R el y i ng on St at e v. Losoy a, he argu ed that , byt est i fy i ng at t ri al t hat hi s l i cense 7 p late w a s c lea rlyv isib le th ro u g h th e w in d sh ield , h e ra ise d a d isp u ted f a c t issu e e n tit lin g h im t o t he 38. 23 i ns t r uct i on. I n Losoy a , the A u stin c o u rt h e ld th a t w e d g in g a lice n se p late betw een the dashb oard and t he w i nd shi el d “i s n ot i nco nsi st ent w i t h t he langu age o r purpose of” Sec t i on 502. 404( a)

. A ppel l antal s o ar gued t hathi s t r i al t es t i m onyr ai s ed a di s put ed fa ct 8 i s s ue r egar di ng w het herhe had pa r ked o n t he s i dew al k. I n ei t hercas e, i f t he j ur ycr edi t ed hi s t es t i m ony , i ts houl d have be en i ns t r uct ed t o di s r egar d t he evi dence of coc ai ne. T he A m a r i l l o Cou r t o f App e a l s h e l d t h a t Te x a s Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Cod e Se c t i on 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a ) r e q u ir e s th a t th e f ro n t lic e n s e p la te b e a f f ix e d “ w h e re th e c a r b e g in s , i.e ., t he for emostar ea of

t he vehi cl e. ” B eca us e appe l l ant’s fr ont l i cens e pl at e w as not s o l ocat ed,

9

“ t h e o f f i c e r was n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i n d s o me o t h e r r e a s o n t o d e t a i n h i m a f t e r d i s c o v e r i n g t heSpence Pag e 6

Id. 10 Id. at 317. 11 Id. at 318. 12 Id. 13 p lat e’s l o ca ti o n . N o r w as th e tri al co u rto b li g ated to instruc t th e jury o therw ise. ” T h e C o u rt 10

o f A p p e a ls n o ted th a t, w h ile th e re w a s a d isp u te a b o u t w h e th e r th e lice n se p late c o u ld re a d ily be s een, b o th p art i es agr eed thatt he pl at e w as l ocat ed i n bet w een the das hboar d and t he

w i nds hi el d. T hus , t he onl yi s s ue w as w het hert hati s a per m i s s i bl e l ocat i on underSect i on 502. 404( a )

. Th e c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e t e r m “ f r o n t ” a s u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e was not ambi guous and s ho u ld be defi ned i n acc or dance w i t h i t s comm on us age. I t expl ai ned t hat

comm on expr es s i ons , s uch as “fr ont page, ” “fr ont of t he l i ne, ” or “s t or m fr ont , ” connot e “the idea o f so m ethin g p rec ed ing so m ethin g e ls e, or o f th e b eg inn ing o f a n o b ject. ” In

11

“ a p p e n d in g th e p re p o sitio n ‘a t’ b e f o re th e p h ra se ‘f

ro n t an d re a r,’th e leg isla tu re e f f e c tiv e ly des cr i bed a l ocat i on as oppos ed t o a di r ect i on or abi l i t yt o s ens e. ” Fi nal l y , t he cour t not ed 12 t hat, i f t he p urpose o f t he st at ute i s t o faci l i t at e veh i cl e i den t i fi cat i on , perm i t t i ng t he li cense pl at e t o be di s pl ay ed anyw her e i n t he fr onthal f of the vehi cle, so lon g as i t can be s een, i m pedes t hi s purpos e. 13 II. T he ques t i on befor e thi s C our t i s one of s t atut or ycons t r uct i on conce r ni ng Sect i on 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a ) o f

th e T e x a s T ra n sp o rta tio n C o d e . T h a t se c tio n , ti tled “ O p e ra tio n o f a V e h icleSpence Pag e 7

Ramos v. State, 30 3 S. W.3 d 3 02 , 3 06 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 09 ); W illiam s v . S

tate , 253 14 S.W .3d 673, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Ma ha ffe yv . S tate , _ _ S
. W
. 3 d _ _ , _ _ , N o . P D
- 1 4 9 1

- 0 9 , 2 0 1 0 T e x . C ri m . Ap p . LE X IS 15 795, *11 (Tex. Crim. App. J une 30, 2010). Bo yk in v . S tate , 818 S.W .2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 16 Id. 17 W ith o u t L ice n se P late o r R e g istra tio n In sig n ia,” p ro v id e s: A per s on comm i t s an off ens e if the per s on oper at es on a publ i c hi ghw ay dur i ng a re gi s t r at i on per i od a pas s engercarorcomm er ci al m ot orvehi cl e t hat d o e s n o t d is p la ytw o lic e n s e p la te s , a t th e f ro n t a n d re a r o f

th e v e h ic le

. Speci fi cal l y , does t he t ext“att he fr ont . . . of t he vehi cl e” pe r m i t a l i cens e p lat e t o be d isp layed a n y w h e re in th e f ro n t h a lf o f th e c a r o r tru c k o r o n lya t it s f o re m o st p a rt? A . St at ut or y C ons t r uc t i on. S t a t u t o r yc o n s t r u c t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w; t h e r e f o r e o u r r e v i e w i s d e n o v o . As we 14

r ece nt l ys t at ed i n Mahaf f ey, i n i nt erpr et i ng s t atut es , w e focus on t he l i t er al t ext t o det er m i ne th e o b jec tiv e m e a n in g o f

th a t tex t at th e tim e o f

its e n a c tm e n t. W e f

o llo w th is p rin c ip le 15 beca us e ( 1) “t he t extof t he s t atut e i s t he l aw ”; ( 2) “t he t exti s t he onl ydefi ni t i ve evi dence of

w h a t t h e l e g i s l a t o r s . . . h a d i n mi n d whe n t h e s t a t e was e n a c t e d i n t o l a w ”; and ( 3) “t he l egi s l atur e i s cons t i t ut i onal l yent i t l ed t o expec t t hatt he j udi ci ar yw i l l fai t hful l yfol l ow t he sp e c if ic tex t th a t w a s ad o p ted .” T h e re f o re , “if th e m e a n in g o f

th e sta tu to rytex t . . . sh o u ld 16 h a v e b e e n p lain to th e le g is la to rs w h o v o ted o n it, w e o rd in a rilyg iv e e f f e c t to th a t p lain

m ea n ing

. ” W e d ep art fro m this p lai n -m ea n ing rule o n lyw h en “a p p li ca ti o n o f a stat u te’s

17 pl ai n l anguage w oul d l ead t o abs ur d cons equenc es ” or “t he l anguage i s notpl ai n but r at herSpence Pag e 8

Id. 18 Spence , 296 S.W .3d at 317. 19 State’s B rief a

t 14, n.23 (“ See, e .g. B LACK ’ S LAW D I CT I O N A RY 739 (9th ed. 2009) 20 (d e fi nin gfront ( no un ) a s ‘ thefo re mos t pa rt of so me thi ng ’) ; Me rri am -W e bs te r’ s Co lle gia te Di c tio na ry

503 (11th ed. 2005) ( definingfront (a djective) as ‘of , rela ting to, or situated at the front’ wi th f

ro nt (no un ) d e fi ne d a s ‘ thefo rw ard pa rt or su rf a c e ’) ; En c arta W

orld E nglis h Di c tio na ry

716 (1999) ( definingfront, whe n used as pa rt of adje ctive phra se ‘at or nea r the front,’ a s ‘ sit

uate d at, o n, or

ne ar t hefront of

so me thi ng , o r p la c e d f

ur the r f or wa rd tha n o the rs ’ with front (noun) de fined a s ‘the area se ction, or position justahea d of, close to, or at the for ward pa rt of so me thi ng ’) ; The Cassell Concise English Dictionary, New Edit ion 537 (1992) ( defining front (a djective) as ‘r elatingto or situated in or at the f ront’ with front (noun) def ined as ‘the fo rw ard pa rt or sid e of any thi ng ’) ; Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 502-03 (1983) ( definingfront (a djective) as ‘of , relating to, in, the front’ with front (noun) define d as ‘t hefo repa rt of any thi ng ’) ; W

ebster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 736 (2d ed. 1983) (d e fi nin gfront ( a dje c tiv e ) a s ‘ pe rt a ini ngto t hefo repa rt or front; s itu ate d in , at, o r o n th e front’ a m b ig u o u s .” 18 B . U nd er th e P l ai n L anguage of Sect i on 502. 404( a) of t he T exas T rans port at i on C ode, a L i cens e P l at e m ust B e D i s pl ay ed at t he B egi nni ng or F orem os t P art of a V ehi cl e, M os t C om m onl y t he F ront B um per. T he pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 502. 404( a) r equi r es a l i cens e pl at e t o be di s pl ay ed “a t t he fr ont . . . of t he vehi cl e. ” I n t hi s cont ext , “fr ont ” means t he for emostpar t or begi nni ng of a ve hi cl e, not i n t he fr ont hal f, fac i ng t he fr ont , or i n t he fr ontpor t i on. T hi s m eani ng of “fr ont ” as a l ocat i on i s not ambi guous and does not l ead t o an absur d r es ul t . W hi l e t he T r ans por t at i on C ode does not expl i ci t l ydefi ne “f r ont , ” comm on us age and defi ni t i ons of t he

w or d pr ovi de ampl e s uppor t for t hi s cons t r uct i on. A s t he A m ar i l l o C our t obs er ved, comm on phr as es s uch as “go t o t he fr ont of t he l i ne, ” “fr ont page, ” “fr ont door , ” and “ fr ont s eat ” ea ch

c o n v e yth e id e a o f “ s o m e th in g p re c e d in g s o m e th in g e ls e , o r o f th e b e g in n in g o f

a n o b je c t.” 19 T hi s i nt erpr et at i on i s cons i s t entw i t h t he or di nar ydi ct i onar ydefi ni t i on. 20Spence Pag e 9

wi th f ro nt (no un ) d e fi ne d a s ‘ fi rs t pa rt ; be g inn ing ’) ; The American H eritage Dictionary, Se cond College Edition 536 (2d ed. 1982) (def ining f ront (adje ctive) a s ‘[o] f, per taining to, a imed at, or located in the f

ront’ with front (noun) def ined as ‘[t]he area , location, or position directly before or ahe ad.’) ”). T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE § 5 02 .4 09 (a)( 5) (disp laye d numb e rs and le tte rs on a lic e ns e plate 21 must be fre e from “blurringor re flec tive matter”and “pla inly visible at all times during da ylight” ); T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE § 547.322(f) (vehic les must be equipped with a white lamp that “(1) illumi nates the r ear

license plate; and (2) makes the plate clea rly leg ible at a distanc e of 50 fe e t f ro m th e re ar. ” ); T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE § 547.801(a) (3) (requiringmotorcycles to be e quipped with a white lamp to illuminate the rea r licenseplate). Losoya, 12 8 S. W.3 d at 41 5 ( “ Th e c od e do e s n ot d e fi nethe‘f ro nt’ of a ve hic le . B e c a

us e 22 we f ind the term to be ambiguous, wemay resor t to ex tratextual factor s to determine the me aning of the statute.” ). Fur t her m or e, t hi s pl ai n- l anguage cons t r uct i on does notl ead t o ab sur d r es ul t s but

r a t h e r a c c o mpl i s h e s t h e p u rp o s e o f t h e s t a t u t e . W e t h i n k t h a t t h e p u rp o s e o f Sect i on 502. 404( a) i s t o fac i l i t at e qui ck and acc ur at e i dent i fi cat i on of vehi cl es t hr ough t he cont ent

o f th e ir lice n se p late s. S e v e ra l o th e r T ra n sp o rta tio n C o d e se c tio n s a lso f a c ili tate th is g o a l. 21 B y r equi r i ng t h a t l i c e n s e p l a t e s b e d i s p l a y e d a t t h e f o r e mos t p a r t o f a v e h i c l e , p o l i c e and ci t i zens w il l k n o w ex act l yw her e t o l ook t o qui ckl yfi nd and r ead the pl at e. R educi ng t he

s e a r c h t i m e i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t w h e n t r yi n g t o i d e n t i f y a m o v i n g v e h i c l e . A d d i t i o n a l l y,
con si st ent pl acem ent faci l i t at es accurat e ai m i ng of red li gh t and t oll bo oth cam eras . T hu s, bec au se t he pl ai n m eani ng of Sect i on 502. 404( a) i s notambi guous nordoes i t l ead t o an abs ur d r es ul t , i t r equi r es a l i cens e pl at e t o be di s pl ay ed att he for emostpar t or begi nni ng of a vehi cl e. A ppel l ant ar gues , cons i s t entw i t h St at e v. Losoy a , t hatt he w or d “fr ont ” i n Sect i on 22 502. 404( a) i s ambi guous and does notnece s s ar i l yr efe r to a sp ec i fi c l ocat i on. A ppel l antSpence Pag e 10

Appellant’s B rief at 16. 23 Losoya, 128 S.W .3d at 415-16. 24 Ac t of June19 , 1 97 5, 64 th L e g ., R.S. , c h. 62 1, § 3 (c odif ie d at T EX . REV . C IV . S TAT . 25 art. 6675a -3e § 5) (providingthat a motor vehic le that operates upon the public highways of Texas must have: displayed ther eon, and attached the reto, two (2) license numbe r plates, one(1) plate at th e front and

on e (1 ) at th e re ar, wh ic h h avebe e n d uly and lawf ully assigned for

said vehiclefor the c urre nt reg istration period or have bee n validated by the attac hment of a sy

mbol, tab, or other de vice f or the c urre nt reg istration period.). Thus, under f

ormer la w, the re g istration sticker wa s attache d to the license plates which we re displayed and attached at both the front and the rear of the ve hicle. Unde r cur rent law , the re g istratio n s tic ke r i s atta c he d to thedrive r’ s si dewi nd sh ie ld, wh ilethelic e ns e plate s a resti ll e x p lain s tha t “ ‘f

ro n t lin e ’ an d ‘b a ttl e f

ro n t’ f o r ex a m p le, ca n m e a n a n a re a o f re a l es tate q u ite lar g e ” a n d “ [ w ]h ile c e rta in lyth e p h ra se ‘f ro n t p a g e ’ . . . c o n n o tes a sin g u lar m e a n in g , in cont r as t ‘ s t or m fr ont ’ does not . ” W hi l e s om e of thes e comm on expre s s i ons m aybe 23

s us cept i bl e t o s uch an i nt erpr et at i on, t he most s t r ai ght for w ar d r eadi ng of ea ch connot es t he

e d g e o f s o m e th in g . F u rt h e rm o re , u s in g e a c h a s p a rt o f a p h ra s e s u c h a s “ a t th e b a ttle f ro n t,” “at t he fron t l i ne, ” or “at t he st orm fro n t” d ir ect s t he reader t o a spec i fi c l ocati on , m ost

comm onl yfoun d att he edge or begi nni ng of w hati s bei ng des cr i bed. Si m i l ar l y , Sect i on 502. 4 0 4 ( a ) r e q u i r e s t h a t a l i c e n s e p l a t e b e d i s p l a y e d “ a t t h e f r o n t . . . o f t h e v ehi cl e. ” The p la in m e a n in g o f

th e w o rd “ f

ro n t” in th is s ta tu te is a s p e c if ic lo c a tio n . A ppel l antal s o ar gues , r el y i ng on t he l egi s l at i ve anal y si s found i n Losoy a , t hat 24 beca us e t he curr ents t atut e om i t s t he phra s e “and at t ache d t her et o” found i n t he pr edec es s or to S e c tio n 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a ), th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d to d isc a rd th e re q u ire m e n t th a t a lic e n se p late be at t ache d t o t he vehi cl e. T hi s , he ar gues , i s evi dence t hati t need notbe at t ache d t o t he 25Spence Pag e 11

displayed at the f

ront and re ar of

the vehicle

. Senate Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, Tex . H.B . 225, 72nd L eg ., R.S. (1991); 26 House Comm. on Transportation, Bill Analy sis, Tex . H.B . 225, 72nd L eg ., R.S. (1991). T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 502.404(a)

. 27 T EX . REV . C IV . S TAT . art. 6675a -3e, § 5 (repe aled)

. 28 Losoya, 128 S.W .3d at 415-16 (stating that the omission of “attached the reto”in the 29 c ur re nt s tatut e “ su

pp or ts L os oya ’s argume nt t

hat th e pr e se nt s tatut e do e s n ot re qu ir e thelic e ns e plate to be physically

attache d to the vehicle”and that this “in turn, is some evidenc e that the license plate nee d not be attac hed to the front bumper.”)

. front bu m per. W hil e i t i s t rue t hat t he curr ent st at ute do es no t speci fi cal l y st at e t hat a l i cense pl at e be “ at t ache d” t o t he fr ont of t he vehi cl e, t he am endment t hat el i m i nat ed t hi s l anguage

w a s b a se d o n e n tirely d if f e re n t g ro u n d s. B o th th e S e n a te a n d th e H o u se c o m m itt e e re p o rts expr es s an i nt entt o r el ocat e t he vehi cl e r egi s t r at i on s t i ckerfr om t he l i cens e plate t o t he

w in d sh ield , b u t th o se re p o r ts s a y n o th in g a b o u t ch a n g in g th e lo c a tio n o f th e lice n se p late i t s el f. Fur t her m or e, t her e i s no pr act i cal di ffe r ence bet w een r equi r i ng a l i cens e pl at e t o be

26 di s pl ay ed “a t t he fr ont . . . of t he vehi cl e” orhaving it att ac h ed and di s pl ay ed “a tt he 27 fro n t. ” T he Losoy a cour t i m pl i es t hatt he pr evi ous s t atut e r equi r ed a l i cens e pl at e t o be

28 at t ache d t o t he fr ontbum per but under i t s ow n i nt erpr et at i on of “fr ont , ” one coul d j us tas 29

reas on ablycon cl ud e t hat t he p l at e cou l d b e at t ached t o the dashb oard or w i nd shi el d, becau se t he phr as e “a t t he fr ont ” di d not change; onl yt he phr as e “di s pl ay ed and a t t ache d” w as sh o rte n e d to “ d isp layed .” T h e leg isla tiv e h isto ryo f S e c tio n 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a ) p ro v id e s littl e evi dence t hatt he l egi s l atur e i nt ended t o di s car d t he re q u ir em entt hata l i cens e pl at e be att ac h ed to o r disp lay ed at t h e f ron t of the v eh icl e, usu all ythe f ron t bu m p er.Spence Pag e 12

Id. at 416. 30 Even if a

license plate could be le g ally propped up ag ainst the windshield, Offic er 31 Ble dsoe had probable c ause to stop appe llant beca use he r easona

bly believed a

ppellant did not havea va lid lic e ns e plate at th e tim e hewa s p ull e d o ve r. On ly wh e n th e of

fi c e r w a lke d u

p c los e to the car could he se e the lice nse plate. Se eFo ste r v . S tate , 8 1 4 S. W. 2 d

8 7 4 , 8 7 8 ( T e x. App.—B eaumont 1991, pet. r ef’ d) (probable c ause e x isted when off icer s could not see temporar y plate leg ally

displayed in re ar tinted window) , ab roga te d o n o the r g ro un ds by Ge esa v . S tate , 820 S.W .2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). F in a lly , ev e n if

th e w o rd “ f

ro n t” w e re a m b ig u o u s, th e A u stin c o u rt’s in ter p re tatio n in Losoy a confl i ct s w i t h t he purpos e of t he st atut e. I n Losoy a t he cour t s t at ed, and w e agr ee, t hat“[t ] he appa r ent purpos e of s ect i on 502. 404( a) i s t o fac i l i t at e t he i dent i fi cat i on of a mot or

v e h ic le b yits lic e n s e p la te n u m b e r w h e th e r i t is m o v in g to w a rd o r a w a yf ro m th e v ie w e r.” 30 A llo w in g t he pl at e t o be l ocated i n a nu m ber of di fferent places w ou l d m ake i t diffi cult to qui ckl ydet erm ine w hethera gi ven ca r has a l i cens e pl at e orw hati t s num ber s ar e. F u rt h erm o re, r ef

lected su n li g h t o r the lac k o f li g h t atn igh tt im e w o u ld f u rt h er im p ed e o n e’s abil i t y t o fi nd t he l ocati on and con t ent of a l i cense p l at e placed un der t he w i nd shi el d. T hese di ffi cul t i es w oul d r es ul t i n farm or e unnec es s ar yt r aff i c st o p s. T he purpos e of Sec t i on

31 502. 404( a) i s bes t acc om pl i s hed w hen “fr ont ” i s i nt erpr et ed i n acc or d w i t h i t s pl ai n m eani ng
a n d re q u ir e s a lic e n s e p la te to b e lo c a te d a t th e f o re m o s t p a rt o f

th e v e h ic le

. III . A . A ppel l ant ’ s P l acem ent of H i s L i cens e Pl at e D id N ot C om pl y w i t h Sect i on 5 0 2 . 4 0 4 (a). A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef r es t at es hi s t r i al t es t im o nyt hatt he l i cens e pl at e w as “pr opped up i ns i de, up i n t he w i ndow on t he gl as s , s o it w as al l t he w ayup i n fr ont of t he fr ontSpence Pag e 13

Appellant’s B rief at 12. 32 Spence , 296 S.W .3d at 316. 33 Se eMa dd

e n v . S tate , 242 S.W .3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 34 w i nds hi el d. ” O ffi cerB l eds oe’ s t es t i m onyt hatt her e w as no l i ce n se pl at e at t ache d t o t he

32 fr ont bum perand t hathe s aw t he pl at e behi nd t he w i nds hi el d onl y w hen he w al ked up t o t he

caral s o confi r m s t he l ocat i on of t he pl at e. O n appea l , t he A m ar i l l o C our t obs er ved t hat

w hi l e “a l l agr ee on the pl at e’ s l ocat i on . . . [a] ques t i on ar i s es , how ever , as t o w het hert hat

w as a per m i s s i bl e l ocat i on. ” T he C our t of A ppeal s hel d t hat , beca us e Sect i on 502. 404( a) 33

re q u ir e s th e l i c e n s e p la te to b e lo c a te d “ w h e re th e c a r b e g in s , i

. e. t he for emostar ea of t he vehi cl e” a nd beca us e t he l i cenc e pl at e w as not s o l ocat ed, appel l ant di d notcompl yw i t h t he sta tu te. W e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls; a p p e llan t’s p lac e m e n t o f h is lice n se p late b e tw e e n h is w in d s h ie ld a n d d a s h b o a rd d id n o t c o m p ly w ith S e c tio n 5 0 2 .4 0 4 (a ). B. A ppe l l ant W as N ot Ent i t l e d t o a n A r t i c l e 38 . 23 Jur y I ns t r uc t i on. A p p ell an t al so arg u es th at t h e tri al co u rterre d in n o t giving an arti cle 3 8
. 2 3 jury in stru c tio n re g a rd in g th e p lac e m e n t o f th e lice n se p late . P ro p e r p lac e m e n t o f a lice n se p late i s a ques t i on of l aw , not one of di s put ed h ist or i cal fac t . Si nce both par t i es agr eed on the l ocati on of the l i cense pl at e, an ar t i cl e 38
. 23 i nst ruct i on w as no t w arr anted. A pp el l ant al so 34

ar gues he s houl d have be en gi v en a 3 8
. 23 i ns t r uct i on addr es s i ng t he fa ctual di s put e about

w her e he pa r ked. T h is instruct i on w as al s o cor r ect l ydeni ed bec aus e t her e w as s uffi ci ent pr obabl e ca u se for O ffi cerB l eds oe t o s t op hi m bas ed on t he l i cens e pl at e vi ol at i on. T heSpence Pag e 14

Id. at 510 &n.15 (“And if other f acts, not in dispute, aresufficie nt to support the 35 lawfulne ss of the cha lleng ed conduc t, then the disputed fac t issue is not subm itted to the jury beca use it is not material to the ultimate admissibil ity of the e vidence .”). t r aff i c s t op w as l egal r egar dl es s of w het herappel l antdi d ordi d not par k on t he s i dew al k. 35 U ndert he pl ai n l anguage of t he Texas T r ans por t at i on C ode, a l i cens e pl at e mustbe d isplay ed at t h e fo rem o st p art or b eg inn ing o f a v eh icl e, m o st co m m o n lythe f ron t bu m p er. T h e w o rd “ fro n t” i n S ec ti o n 5 0 2
. 4 0 4 (a) is ne ith er a m b igu o u s n o r d o es itlead to an ab su rd

res ult

. A ccordi ng l y , w e affir m t he judgm ent of t he A m ari l l o C ou rtof A pp eal s. D el i ver ed: Sept ember 15, 2010 P ub l i sh