PD-1012-15
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
KEVIN DEAN DUNN, Petitioner,
vs. No. ________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent
******************************************************************** PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ********************************************************************
WYDE & ASSOCIATES, LLP Dan L. Wyde SBN 22095500 10100 N. Central Expressway, Suite 590 Dallas, Texas 75231 Tel 214-521-9100 August 28, 2015 Fax 214-521-9130 wydelaw@gmail.com
PETITIONER
PETITIONER REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
1 Identity of Parties
The appellant is Kevin Dean Dunn, who is the defendant in the State of
Texas v. Kevin Dean Dunn, Case Number 1298839. Appellee is the State of
Texas. The appellant appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress
and motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence and the trial court's verdict
of guilty and its written judgment.
Appellant's trial and appellate counsel is:
1. Hon. Dan L. Wyde 10100 North Central Expressway, Suite 590 Dallas, Texas 75231 Tel.: 214.521.9100 Fax: 214.521.9130 Email: wydela w@gmail.com
Appellee' s trial counsel is:
1. Hon. Charles A. Boulware Hon. Jacob R. Lilly Assistant Criminal District Attorneys, Tarrant County, Texas Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center, Fifth Floor 401W. Belknap Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196 Tel.: 817-884-2608
Appellee' s appellate counsel is:
1. Hon. Charles M. Mallin Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Tarrant County, Texas Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center 401 W. Belknap StreetFort Worth, Texas 76196 Tel.: 817-884-2608
2 Trial Judge Is:
Judge Jerry Woodlock Visiting Judge 2655 Harris Street Gainseville, TX 76240
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Judge, Parties, and Counsel………………………………………2
Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………..5
Statement Regarding Oral Argument………………………………………....6
Statement of the Case…………………………………………………………6
Statement of Procedural History………………………………………………6
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….7
Grounds for Review…………………………………………………………...7
Argument………………………………………………………………………8
First Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously denied appellant's Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence on the grounds that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop on the Appellant.
Second Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously charged the jury regarding the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to initiate any encounter or detention of the appellant while operating a motor vehicle, as set forth in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
4 Index of Authorities
Statutes Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 36.14 ………………………………….....p. 14 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.23 ………………………………….…p. 124 Texas Transportation Code §545.060(a) ……………………………… pgs. 12, 13
Cases Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); ………….…p. 14 Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); ………….........pgs. 10, 16 Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324, 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); ………………..p. 15 Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, (1984); ………….…p. 11 Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 868-869, 871 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998); ……………………………………………… pgs. 11, 12, 13
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.ed.2d 889 (1968); …………..p. 11 Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); ……………………p. 15 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, (1996); ...pgs. 7, 9, 10,14 15, 16
Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); ………………………p. 11
Rules Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 66.3 …………………………………………p. 8
5 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument should be granted in this appeal as it will aid the Court in
reviewing the totality of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, as well as
to resolve the standard for an officer to effectuate the stop of a vehicle for a traffic
offense.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case concerns a traffic stop based on the transportation code offense of
failure to maintain a single lane. The stop resulted in the appellant’s arrest and
subsequent conviction for the offense of driving while intoxicated. Appellant filed a
pre-trial motion to suppress which was denied by the trial court. Appellant also
submitted the issue of the reasonableness of the stop to the jury. Appellant contends
that the trial court applied the wrong evidentiary standard for a detention based on a
traffic violation, and incorrectly instructed the jury on the legal standard.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
(1) Date of opinion from Court of Appeals: May 21, 2015
(2) Date of Motion for Rehearing: June 22, 2015
(3) Date Motion for Rehearing Disposed: July 16, 2015
6 ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES
The required documents and several other key documents from the trial are
attached to this Petition in the Appendix. The pages of the Appendix are numbered
in the lower, right-hand corner for ease of reference and use by the Court. The
Clerk’s Record (CR) is referred to by page number (e.g., CR422). The Reporter’s
Record (RR) is referred to by volume number, then page number (e.g. 3 RR 88-90).
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
1. Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion for a Traffic Stop
The trial court only found that there was reasonable suspicion to believe the
traffic offense occurred. Appellant contends that, pursuant to Whren v. United States,
517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996), the proper standard is probable cause, not
reasonable suspicion. “The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the
police have probable cause to believe a traffic stop occurred.” Whren at 810.
Appellant contends that an investigative detention can be based on reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause of a traffic violation, and that the
correct legal standard for a stop based on failure to maintain a single lane is probable
cause.
7 2. Improper Jury Instruction
The trial court improperly instructed the jury that the stop of appellant was
reasonable if reasonable suspicion existed to believe a traffic violation had occurred.
The proper instruction would have been that the stop was reasonable if probable
cause existed to believe a traffic violation had occurred.
The Court of Appeals for the Second District, Fort Worth, Texas denied
appellants appeal and affirmed the trial court’s rulings. Appellant contends that the
Court of Appeals has decided an important question of law that has not been but
should be settled by the Court of Criminal Appeals, or has decided an important
question of law which conflicts with a decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that therefore the Court of Criminal Appeals should grant review of this
petition, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 66.3 (b) and (c).
ARGUMENT
This case is an appeal from a verdict of guilty wherein the appellant was
accused of Driving While Intoxicated, a Class A Misdemeanor. On August 24,
2012, the Appellant's vehicle was stopped pursuant to a traffic stop by Officer
Daniel McLain, a DWI Officer with the Grapevine Police Department, for
failure to maintain a single lane of travel. RR. Vol. 2, 5-10. Appellant was
subsequently arrested for driving while intoxicated after the officer
8 detected the smell of alcohol on his breath and slurred speech, and the
appellant refused to perform field sobriety exercises. RR, Ex. Index State
Ex. 1.
The trial court erred when it failed to grant appellant's Motion to
Suppress. The trial court further erred when it erroneously charged the jury
regarding the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to initiate any
encounter or detention of the appellant while operating a motor vehicle for a
traffic offense as opposed to a criminal offense.
First Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously denied appellant's Motion
to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence on the grounds that the officer did
not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop on the
Appellant.
Second Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously charged the jury
regarding the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to initiate any
encounter or detention of the appellant while operating a motor vehicle, as set
forth in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
After the Whren decision, it can be said that what has emerged in
practice is a dual standard. The standard requires probable cause to stop for a
traffic violation or reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed or is 9 committing a crime. If Officer McClain had stopped appellant on the belief that
appellant was driving while intoxicated then the reasonable suspicion standard
would still apply, if and only if his suspicion was "reasonable" ; which means
based on "reason(s)" ; not a hunch someone has ingested an intoxicant, and that
intoxicant has caused the person to not have the normal use of their mental or
physical faculties. It is clear from the facts that Officer McClain believed he
had probable cause to arrest appellant for driving while intoxicated only after he
made contact with appellant and not as he was pulling him over for the traffic
offense. The appellant was harmed by the use of the lower standard. Given the
United States Supreme Court holding in Whren v. United States, the jury should
have been charged as to this higher standard as requested by appellant and it was
error for the trial court to not instruct as such. Failure to instruct the jury as to the
proper burden of proof is fundamental error. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157
(Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Error requires this court to reverse the trial court and acquit
the appellant. The trial court further erred by failing to include defense counsel's
requested language change in the court's charge.
Issue One: Whether the trial court erroneously denied appellant's Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence on the grounds that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Appellant's vehicle.
10 Appellant contends that this court should remand this issue to the trial
court to make complete findings of fact and conclusions of law such that this
court can review the trial court's application of law to the facts as were
presented at the suppression hearing. Should the court not be so inclined, this
court could and should still find that the trial court erred in denying appellant's
Motion to Suppress as the trial court's findings were not supported by the
record, as more fully set forth below.
"A police officer can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative
purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable
facts that criminal activity may be afoot, even if the officer lacks evidence
rising to the level of 'probable cause."' Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29, 88 S.Ct.
1868 (1968). A warrantless automobile stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure
analogous to a temporary detention, and it must be justified by reasonable
suspicion. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (1984);
Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref d). A
detaining officer must have specific articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, lead him to conclude that the person
detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Woods v.
State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim.App.1997); Hernandez, 983 S.W.2d at
869. 11 The State did not meet its burden in proving that appellant's conduct was
suspicious enough to warrant police intrusion at the time the stop was made
and the judge made no findings of the officer's specific, articulable facts
sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause. See
Appendix, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Officer McClain, the sole
witness for the State, testified at the suppression hearing that the basis for him
initiating a traffic stop of the Appellant's vehicle was for failure to maintain a
single lane of travel, a traffic offense. Upon further questioning by the State he
added that, at the time of the stop, he also "possibly" had the reasonable belief
that the appellant might be intoxicated. He based this "possible" belief on the
fact that it was 11:00 o'clock at night and the appellant was travelling away
from the bar district. His training and experience led him to the hunch that the
appellant was intoxicated. Even if the State were to argue that the basis of the
suspicion for the stop was that appellant was intoxicated, and not merely that
appellant had violated section 545.060(a) of the Transportation Code, they did
not meet their burden. To apply the officer's hunch to every motorist, then
every motorist who is traveling away from a "bar district" in the 11:00 o'clock
hour, who commits any traffic offense, must be intoxicated, is not only illogical,
but absurd.
12 The issue in this case is not whether the officer had sufficient articulable
facts to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that appellant was intoxicated, but
whether he had sufficient articulable facts to give rise to probable cause that
appellant had committed a traffic offense. This is supported by Officer
McClain's testimony that he stopped appellant for the traffic offense and not
for the "possible" belief of intoxication.
Texas Transportation Code Sec. 545.060(a) provides:
(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and
(2) may not move from the lane unless movement can be made
safely. Under this statute, a violation occurs only when a vehicle fails to stay
within its lane and such movement is not safe or is not made safely.
Hernandez, 983 S.W.2d at 871. In Hernandez, the officer testified that the
vehicle in question failed to maintain a single marked lane and the repeated
lane changes were unsafe because he was concerned about the driver's well-
being. Id. at 868. The State did not meet its burden in showing that the
movement of appellant's vehicle was unsafe and the trial court erred in denying
appellant's Motion to Suppress. The trial court's ruling should be overruled by
this court as it was not sufficiently supported by the credible and believable 13 evidence presented.
Issue Two: Whether the trial court erroneously charged the jury regarding the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to initiate any encounter or detention of the appellant while operating a motor vehicle, as set forth in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 36.14 requires the trial court deliver to
the jury "a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the
case." Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 36.14. When reviewing alleged errors
in a trial court's charge, we must first determine whether error actually exists in
the charge, and, if error does exist, we must determine whether sufficient harm
resulted from the error to require reversal. Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726,
731-732 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) .
The trial court incorrectly charged the jury regarding the burden of proof
necessary for law enforcement to initiate any encounter or detention of the
appellant while operating a motor vehicle. The trial court erred by denying
appellant's request to include for the jury the definition of the applicable traffic
offense. The appellant argued and made the record pursuant to Code of
Criminal Procedure Article 36.14 that under the facts of the instant case the
proper standard in respect to the 38.23 language was probable cause as opposed
to reasonable suspicion and asked the court to change the language of the 14 charge to so reflect.
Defense counsel also argued for the trial court to include for the jury the
definition of what constitutes failing to maintain a single lane of traffic so that
the jury could answer the factual question of whether or not appellant left his
lane of traffic and, if so, whether he did so unsafely.
Officer McClain did not stop appellant because he had a reasonable
suspicion that the appellant was intoxicated. He stopped appellant because he
believed appellant to have committed a traffic offense, namely the failure to
stay within a single lane of traffic. In Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806,
116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996), the United States Supreme Court, declared "probable
cause" to be the constitutionally mandated level of suspicion necessary to stop an
automobile for a traffic violation. The Whren court stated:
"An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996). The Texas
courts have followed this same language in Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) and Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538
(Tex.Crim.App.2000) where they quoted straight from the Whren decision and
stated, "Generally, a police officer's decision to stop a car is reasonable when
15 the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred
._Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324, 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Walter v. State,
28 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996)).
After the Whren decision, it can be said that what has emerged in
practice is a dual standard. The standard requires probable cause to stop for a
traffic violation or reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed or is
committing a crime. If Officer McClain had stopped appellant on the belief that
appellant was driving while intoxicated then the reasonable suspicion standard
would still apply, if and only if his suspicion was "reasonable"; which means
based on "reason(s)"; not a hunch someone has ingested an intoxicant, and that
intoxicant has caused the person to not have the normal use of their mental or
physical faculties. It is clear from the facts that Officer McClain believed he
had probable cause to arrest appellant for driving while intoxicated only after he
made contact with appellant and not as he was pulling him over for the traffic
offense. The appellant was harmed by the use of the lower standard. Given the
United States Supreme Court holding in Whren v. United States, the jury should
have been charged as to this higher standard as requested by appellant and it was
error for the trial court to not instruct as such. Failure to instruct the jury as to the
proper burden of proof is fundamental error. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 16 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Error requires this court to reverse the trial court and acquit
the appellant.
Conclusion
The uncontroverted and unchallenged videotape evidence of the incident
shows that the trial court erroneously denied appellant's two pre-trial motions
to suppress evidence. Officer McClain had no probable cause to effectuate the
traffic stop on appellant for the alleged traffic offense of failure to maintain a
single lane of travel. The State's Exhibit 1 is conclusive proof that no traffic
offense occurred. Thus, pursuant to 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the
trial court erred by not suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of an
unlawful search.
Prayer
Petitioner prays that this Petition be granted;
That the evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle stop be ordered
suppressed, and the conviction based on the evidence obtained as a result of the
improper vehicle stop should be reversed and judgment of acquittal rendered, or in
the alternative that the case should be remanded to the trial court with the order that
the evidence be suppressed.
The error in the jury charge for possession cases should be corrected for all
future cases. 17 Petitioner also requests such other and further relief as is just.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Dan L. Wyde Dan L. Wyde Texas Bar No. 22095500 10100 North Central Expressway, Suite 590 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel.: (214) 521-9100; Fax: (214) 521-9130 E-mail: wydelaw@gmail.com Attorney for Kevin Dean Dunn, Petitioner
18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify in accordance with Rule 9.4(i)(2)(D) of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure that the number of words in this document is 3,128 as
calculated by the Word Count tool in Microsoft Word.
/S / Dan L. Wyde Dan L. Wyde CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 11, 2014, a true and correct copy of the above
and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Appellate
Division, Tarrant County, by facsimile transmission to 817.884.1672.
/s/ Dan L. Wyde Server
20 Envelope Details
Print this page
Envelope 6617393 Case Information Location Court Of Criminal Appeals Date Filed 08/24/2015 11:03:35 AM Case Number Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney Dan Wyde Firm Name Wyde & Associates Filed By Dan Wyde Filer Type Not Applicable Fees Convenience Fee $0.00 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $0.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $0.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00 Grand Total $0.00 Payment Account Name Wyde & Associates Transaction Amount $0.00 Transaction Response Transaction ID 10846848 Order # 006617393-0
Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Type EFile Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Description Reference Number Comments Status Rejected Fees Court Fee $0.00 Service Fee $0.00 Rejection Information Rejection Time Rejection Comment Reason Your petition was initially rejected on August 11, 2015; a corrected petition was due 08/28/2015 ten (10) days later. A corrected petition was due August 21, 2015. You have
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=70787ee1-5515-4b42-a4de-095f36bd323d[8/28/2015 11:02:37 AM] Envelope Details
Other 10:55:11 submitted a corrected petition on August 24, 2015; your petition is untimely. AM Additionally, the petition for discretionary review does not contain a copy of the court of appeals opinion [Rule 68.4(j)]. The time to file a corrected petition has past. Documents Lead Document 2015-08-11 Petition for Discretionary Review Dunn.pdf [Original]
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=70787ee1-5515-4b42-a4de-095f36bd323d[8/28/2015 11:02:37 AM]