State v. Robert Brandon Minatra
This text of State v. Robert Brandon Minatra (State v. Robert Brandon Minatra) 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00160-CR
The State of Texas, Appellant
v.
Robert Brandon Minatra, Appellee
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2018CR0338, HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
The State of Texas has filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order
granting Robert Brandon Minatra’s motion to suppress evidence. Before filing its notice of
appeal, the State filed a request for the district court’s entry of findings of fact and conclusions of
law. No findings or conclusions were made before the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record
were filed with this Court. The State has now filed a motion to abate and remand this cause to
the district court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additionally, the State
requests that we grant the district court “the ability to further consider the State’s Motion for
Reconsideration” of the ruling on the motion to suppress.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that “when the losing party on a
motion to suppress requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court must issue
them, so that the court of appeals may properly review the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Oages, 210 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 698-99
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (requiring trial court to state its “essential findings,” meaning those
“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”)). When the trial court does
not make such findings and conclusions, we are authorized to abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the trial court for entry of its “essential findings.” See Cullen, 195 S.W.3d at 698 (citing
Tex. R. App. P. 44.1); see also Green v. State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939-40 & n.4 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995) (noting that trial court no longer has jurisdiction to adjudicate case once trial record is filed
with appellate court and that “[t]he proper way to revive the trial court’s authority to take action
is by abatement”).
Accordingly, we grant in part the State’s motion. We abate this appeal and
remand this cause to the district court for entry of its findings of fact and conclusions of law. We
deny the State’s request that we allow the district court to “further consider” the State’s motion
to reconsider. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of
law shall be filed with this Court no later than May 21, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2).
This appeal will be reinstated when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed.
It is so ordered April 21, 2020.
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
Abated and Remanded
Filed: April 21, 2020
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Robert Brandon Minatra, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robert-brandon-minatra-texapp-2020.