Servando Quinonez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00105-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00105-CR

SERVANDO QUINONEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the County Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-0298, Honorable D.J. Wagner, Presiding

August 30, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Servando Quinonez appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated. His sole

issue concerns the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion to suppress. Allegedly, there

was insufficient evidence that he committed a traffic violation. We affirm.

Background

Officer Alvaro Sandoval stopped appellant about 1:00 a.m. for failing to properly

signal a turn. The stop followed information the officer received about five minutes earlier.

It indicated the driver of a small white vehicle was leaving an event center after drinking heavily. The officer first spied a car matching the description and then followed it. The

car proceeded down the road at 20 mph though the posted limit was 40. Then, it slowed

to stop at an intersection. At the intersection, the driver (appellant) activated his turn

signal. This, in the officer’s opinion, not only violated a traffic statute requiring the signal

to be activated at least 100 feet before turning but also provided the officer basis to stop

appellant.

Apparently seeing the officer activate his emergency lights, appellant promptly

stopped. The officer then approached appellant, smelled alcohol, and asked if he had

been drinking. Appellant answered affirmatively.

Analysis

Again, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress

evidence garnered from the stop since it, allegedly, was improper. We overrule the issue.

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under the bifurcated

standard of review discussed in State v. Ruiz, 581 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019).

Furthermore, the decision will be upheld if correct on any applicable theory of law, and

the record reasonably supports the ruling. Id. at 785.

Next, a warrantless traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure that is analogous

to temporary detention; therefore, it must be justified by reasonable suspicion. State v.

Hardin, 664 S.W.3d 867, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). If an officer has reasonable

suspicion that a person committed a traffic violation, the officer may conduct a traffic

stop. Id. Additionally, reasonable suspicion exists if the officer has specific articulable

facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead the officer to

2 reasonably conclude the person is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.

Id.

In Texas, it is a criminal offense if an operator of a motor vehicle intending to turn

fails to “signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle

before the turn.” TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104(b). And, if the traffic offense is

committed in the presence of a peace officer, an ensuing stop is reasonable. Jaramillo

v. State, No. 07-15-00245-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3222, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

Mar. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Here, the officer testified to seeing appellant signal his turn far less than 100 feet

before turning at the intersection. Rather, the “vehicle was at or near the stop sign

whenever it began to signal its turn.” The trial court was free to accept the testimony both

as credible and legitimizing the traffic stop. Thus, its decision to deny the motion to

suppress had basis in both law and fact. See Lewis v. State, No. 02-16-00415-CR, 2018

Tex. App. LEXIS 1781, at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 8, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (finding no error in denying motion to suppress when

officer testified that the defendant failed to signal before turning).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.