State v. Adalberto Jaimes

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 5, 2015
Docket03-14-00350-CR
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Adalberto Jaimes (State v. Adalberto Jaimes) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Adalberto Jaimes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00350-CR 4389522 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/5/2015 4:03:38 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK

Rosemary Lehmberg  Travis County District Attorney FILED IN P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767  Telephone: 512-854-9400  Fax: 512-854-9695 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/5/2015 4:03:38 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

March 5, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Third Court of Appeals P.O. Box 121547 Austin, Texas 78711

RE: Appeal No. 03-14-00350-CR State of Texas v. Adalberto Jaimes Trial Court Cause No. D-1-DC-13-200318 427th Judicial District Court

To the Honorable Third Court of Appeals:

Now comes the State of Texas and moves for permission to file this

supplemental letter brief, which addresses the impact of the recent opinion

in Villarreal on this case.

In Villarreal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that (1) a

mandatory blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because it did not

fall under any recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and (2)

implied consent that has been withdrawn by a suspect cannot serve as a

substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the Fourth Amendment

requires. See State v. Villarreal, No. PD-0306-14, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. 1 LEXIS 1898 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2014).

Villarreal directly contradicts the arguments made by the State in

Points One and Two, but the State is not ready to abandon these arguments

because Villarreal is not yet final; in fact, the court granted the State’s

motion for rehearing on February 25, 2015. See id., 2015 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 201. It is quite possible that the court will issue a different decision

upon rehearing, especially since the court was narrowly split 5-4, and three

of the judges who joined the majority opinion have recently left the court.

In the event that this court follows Villarreal and holds that the blood

draw was unconstitutional, the State maintains that the federal and Texas

exclusionary rules do not apply and the evidence is still admissible, as

argued in State’s Points Three and Four.

Prayer

The State prays that this court grant permission to file this letter brief.

Respectfully submitted,

2 Angie Creasy Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 24043613 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9400 Fax (512) 854-4810 Angie.Creasy@traviscountytx.gov AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov

Certificate of Compliance and Service I hereby certify that this letter brief contains 261 words. I further certify

that, on the 5th day of March, 2015, a true and correct copy of this letter

brief was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically

through the electronic filing manager, to the defendant’s attorney, Alberto

Garcia, Attorney at Law, 1715 South First Street, Austin, Texas 78704.

Angie Creasy

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Adalberto Jaimes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adalberto-jaimes-texapp-2015.