Court Opinion

ID: 9963793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 12:13:37.146696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:00.361529
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                        OF TEXAS

                                     NO. PD-0720-22

                                 THE STATE OF TEXAS

                                             v.

                          TRAVIS LAYTON SPIVEY, Appellee

            ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
                   FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                           MCLENNAN COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                       OPINION

       Appellee was indicted for possessing four grams or more, but less than 200 grams,

of methamphetamine based on evidence seized after a canine sniff of Appellee’s vehicle

following a traffic stop. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Appellee filed a

motion to suppress arguing, in part, that the warrantless search and seizure of his property
                                                                                  Spivey — 2

was without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and, alternatively, that officers

unreasonably prolonged the initial detention. See Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 191-93

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond the time necessary to

effectuate the purpose of the stop). The trial court granted Appellee’s motion to suppress.

The State appealed.

       On appeal, the State argued that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the

motion to suppress arguing the trial court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances

when determining whether there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop. The

court of appeals agreed and reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress.

State v. Spivey, No. 10-22000111-CR, 2022 WL 5239684, at *4 (Tex. App. – Waco Oct.

5, 2022, pet. granted) (not designated for publication). Appellee filed a petition for

discretionary review arguing that the court of appeals erred in its opinion below. After

considering the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude that our decision to grant review

was improvident. We therefore dismiss Appellee’s petition for discretionary review as

improvidently granted.

Delivered: April 24, 2024

Do not publish