Rheinlander v. State

918 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 137447
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 27, 1996
Docket0190-95
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 918 S.W.2d 527 (Rheinlander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rheinlander v. State, 918 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 137447 (Tex. 1996).

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY] REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on his plea of nolo contendere for driving while intoxicated. The Third Court of Appeals, however, reversed his conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial because the police officer who stopped his car did not believe at the time that appellant was committing any crime but thought instead that appellant might be ill or having mechanical difficulty with his vehicle. The Court of Appeals held that “before a person driving an automobile may be stopped and lawfully detained by an officer, that officer must have specific articu-lable facts to reasonably suspect that the person stopped is associated with criminal activity.” Rheinlander v. State, 888 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review because the lower court’s holding raises an important question of law not yet decided by this Court.

Appellant, however, has now died and his attorney has moved this Court to abate his appeal permanently. Under our precedents, the death of an appellant during the pen-dency of his appeal deprives this Court and the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. Ryan v. State, 891 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Accordingly, the motion to abate is granted, the State’s petition for discretionary review and the State Prosecuting Attorney’s petition for discretionary review are dismissed, and the Austin Court of Appeals is directed to permanently abate the appeal of this cause. Tex.R.Crim.Pro. 9(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

in Re Richard Bradley
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012
William Scott v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011
Misty Scott Beene v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Sergio Vela Barrera v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Billy R. Belgard v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Kristeen Brooke Adams v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Ex Parte Hunter
297 S.W.3d 292 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Hunter, Jason Wayne
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009
Garland Earl Hawkins v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Gerald Edwin Williams, Sr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
George Allen Williams v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Donald Gene Mohling v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
State v. McCaffrey
76 S.W.3d 392 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Dowler v. State
44 S.W.3d 666 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Jody Lynn Dowler v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001
State v. Curl, Jerry Wayne
28 S.W.3d 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Wright v. State
7 S.W.3d 148 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
State v. Ross
999 S.W.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
918 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 137447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rheinlander-v-state-texcrimapp-1996.