Case Name: Gerardo Tomas RIVAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2013-10-23
Citations: 411 S.W.3d 920
Docket Number: Nos. PD-0490-13, PD-0491-13
Parties: Gerardo Tomas RIVAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 411
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
Gerardo Tomas RIVAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.
Nos. PD-0490-13, PD-0491-13.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 23, 2013.
Gerardo Tomas Rivas, Palestine, TX, pro se.
Joe Shannon, Jr., District Attorney Tar-rant County, Fort Worth, Lisa C. McMinn, State’s Attorney, Austin, TX, for State.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. A dog sniff at his front door led to the charges against him. He filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. Appellant then pleaded guilty to the charges, and the trial court sentenced him to 17 years in prison on each count, to run concurrently.
On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the convictions. Rivas v. State, Nos. 02-12-00062-CR and 02-12-00063-CR, 2013 WL 978911, 2013 Tex.App. LEXIS 2730 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth March 14, 2013) (not designated for publication).
Appellant has filed petitions for discretionary review arguing that the appellate court erred under the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Fla. v. Jardines, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). In Jardines, the Supreme Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Jar-dines was handed down on March 26, 2013, 12 days after the appellate court issued its opinion in these cases.
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of Jardines. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petitions for discretionary review, vacate the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and remand these cases to the Court of Appeals in light of Jar-dines.