Justin Sanders v. State
This text of Justin Sanders v. State (Justin Sanders v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00079-CR
JUSTIN SANDERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 13F1051-102
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. ORDER Justin Sanders appeals from his conviction of manslaughter. Sanders has filed a motion
to abate the appeal to the trial court for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law
relating to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence filed below. Following the
trial court’s denial of Sanders’ motion to suppress, Sanders requested that the trial court enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were
entered by the trial court.
In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals stated,
Effective from the date of this opinion, the requirement is: upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings. By “essential findings,” we mean that the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.
Id. at 699.
Because the requirements of Cullen were not met in this case, we abate the appeal and
remand it to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. The trial court is instructed to enter on the
record findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide this Court with a basis upon
which to review its application of the law to the facts of this case. Specifically, the trial court’s
findings and conclusions should relate to its ruling on Sanders’ motion to suppress evidence
obtained from his cellular telephone pursuant to a search warrant issued October 2, 2013.
The findings and conclusions shall be filed with this Court in the form of a supplemental
clerk’s record within twenty-one days of the date of this order.
2 The abatement will terminate and this Court’s jurisdiction will resume upon the filing of
the supplemental clerk’s record.
All appellate timetables are hereby stayed and will resume upon our receipt of the
supplemental clerk’s record. Upon reinstatement of the case on this Court’s docket, we will
establish a new briefing schedule, giving the parties an opportunity to consider and address the
trial court’s findings and conclusions in their briefing. As a result, Sanders’ second motion
seeking an extension of the briefing deadline is overruled as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: October 22, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Justin Sanders v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justin-sanders-v-state-texapp-2014.