The State of Texas v. Kenneth Earl Norris
This text of The State of Texas v. Kenneth Earl Norris (The State of Texas v. Kenneth Earl Norris) 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. 03-24-00097-CR
The State of Texas, Appellant
v.
Kenneth Earl Norris, Appellee
FROM THE COMAL COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2022CR0317, THE HONORABLE DEBORAH WIGINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
The State of Texas has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order
granting Kenneth Earl Norris’s motion to suppress evidence. The State timely filed a request for
the trial court to make 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 the cause to the trial court for entry of findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law “ensure that reviewing courts need not
presume, assume, or guess at what historical facts a trial judge actually found when making a
ruling in a motion to suppress hearing.” State v. Mendoza, 365 S.W.3d 666, 671 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012). Therefore, “upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence,
the trial court shall state its essential findings,” i.e., “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.” State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). The findings must be “adequate and complete, covering every potentially dispositive
issue that might reasonably be said to have arisen in the course of the suppression proceedings.”
State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When the trial court fails to make
such findings and conclusions, we are required to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the
trial court for entry of its “essential findings.” State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 677 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011); see also Green v. State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939–40 & n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
(holding that when appellate record has been filed with appellate court, “the trial court no longer
has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case” and that “[t]he proper way to revive the trial court’s
authority to take action is by abatement”).
Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion. We abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the district court for entry of its essential findings of fact and conclusions of law. A
supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed
with this Court no later than April 26, 2024. This appeal will be reinstated once the
supplemental clerk’s record is filed.
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
Filed: March 27, 2024
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
The State of Texas v. Kenneth Earl Norris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-state-of-texas-v-kenneth-earl-norris-texapp-2024.