 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rawlins v. State1/29/1998
Rawlins appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. Rawlins pleaded not guilty, waived his right to a jury trial, and the court found him guilty. The court sentenced him to 180 days confinement in the Dallas County Jail probated for two years, and a $750 fine to be paid. In a single point of error, Rawlins argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. Because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Rawlins, we will affirm.
FACTS
While on patrol, Officer Carrie Gohlke, an officer in training with the Carrollton Police Department, observed the defendant, Harold Max Rawlins, driving behind an empty Sonic restaurant at one o'clock in the morning. The Sonic was closed and the restaurant's lights were off. Gohlke testified that since several burglaries were reported in the area, Rawlins' actions were suspicious. After Rawlins pulled out of the Sonic parking lot, Gohlke turned on her overhead police lights and tried to stop Rawlins. Rawlins continued down the street for several more blocks before pulling into the drive-through lane at a closed Taco Bueno restaurant. Rawlins got out of his car and explained to the officers that he was trying to order some food. Officer Gohlke testified that she smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Rawlins' breath, he appeared uneasy standing on his feet, and he supported himself by leaning against his car. After Rawlins refused to take any field sobriety tests, Gohlke arrested him for driving while intoxicated.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In his single point of error, Rawlins contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, he argues that Officer Gohlke did not have reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.
In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court must determine the appropriate standard of review to apply. This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to the review of the trial court's ruling on the facts particularly as to the evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion, we do not disturb the trial court's findings as to the motion to suppress. See Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
When the ultimate resolution of mixed questions of fact and law does not depend upon witness credibility and demeanor, the appellate court does not apply an abuse of discretion standard but a de novo standard to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89. Since the issue of reasonable suspicion involves mixed questions of fact and law, whether we apply the de novo or abuse of discretion standard is determined by whether the trial court's resolution of reasonable suspicion turned on an assessment of the witnesses' credibility and demeanor. Ornelas v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1662 (1996); see Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89.
In this case, Rawlins does not contest that he was driving in the parking lot behind a closed restaurant at one o'clock in the morning, nor does he contest that several burglaries had been reported in the area and that numerous alarms had been sounding. The resolution of the issue concerning whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop does not turn on an evaluation of witness credibility and demeanor. Therefore, we apply a de novo standard of review to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts presented. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 8
Page 1 2 3 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|