The State of Texas v. Vanessa Leigh Coggins

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00666-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 29, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00666-CR ——————————— THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant V. VANESSA LEIGH COGGINS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. MD-0410165

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State charged appellee Vanessa Leigh Coggins with driving while

intoxicated. Before trial, she moved to suppress the toxicology results of a blood

draw taken pursuant to a search warrant. Coggins argued that the arresting officer

gave her incorrect written, statutory warnings, impacting her decision to refuse or consent to giving a blood specimen. The trial court granted the motion to suppress

and ruled the toxicology evidence inadmissible.

The State ultimately obtained the blood sample pursuant to a valid and

uncontested search warrant. Therefore, Coggins’s refusal to consent is immaterial.

The trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to suppress. We reverse

and remand.

Background

While patrolling in early morning hours, a Galveston Police Department

patrol officer came upon Coggins’s vehicle crashed into a parked trailer. The

police officer arrested Coggins and read statutory warnings required under the

Texas Transportation Code.

Coggins refused to provide a breath or blood specimen. After Coggins’s

refusal, the officer obtained a search warrant for a sample of Coggins’s blood. A

judge signed the search warrant, and the officer obtained a sample of Coggins’s

blood at a hospital.

The State charged Coggins with the misdemeanor offense of driving while

intoxicated. Coggins moved to suppress “any and all evidence seized or obtained

as a result of illegal acts on behalf of the Government in this criminal prosecution

which violated the defendant’s rights as guaranteed her under both the federal and

state constitutions and under state statutes.” She argued that the officer provided

2 her incorrect written, statutory warnings. After a hearing, the trial court granted the

motion to suppress the results of Coggins’s blood test. In written findings of fact

and conclusions of law, the trial court held, “The blood evidence was collected in

violation of Texas Transportation Code 724 and therefore is inadmissible.”

The State appeals.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of

discretion using a bifurcated standard. State v. Martinez, 570 S.W.3d 278, 281

(Tex. Crim. App. 2019); Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). We defer to a trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by the record.

Shepherd, 273 S.W.3d at 684. We review de novo legal questions and mixed

questions of law and fact that do not turn on credibility and demeanor. State v.

Espinosa, 666 S.W.3d 659, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). We will sustain the trial

court’s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any

theory of law applicable to the case. State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

Applicable Law

Before requesting a person to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer

shall inform the person orally and in writing of certain information, see TEX.

TRANSP. CODE § 724.015(a). This information includes that “if the person submits

3 to the taking of a blood specimen, the specimen will be retained and preserved in

accordance with Article 38.50, Code of Criminal Procedure.” Id. § 724.015(a)(8).

The information listed in section 724.015 is “also known as the DIC-24 warnings.”

State v. Stubbs, No. 14-23-00670-CR, 2024 WL 5252044, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 31, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (citation omitted). Prior to 2021, the DIC-24 warnings did not require

an officer to inform the person of the retention and preservation requirements of

article 38.50. Id.

Analysis

The police officer arrested Coggins in February 2023. The trial court found

that the officer read Coggins the current, correct version of the DIC-24 warnings

but later gave her an outdated written version that omitted the reference to the

retention and preservation policy in article 38.50. The trial court found that the

officer failed to provide Coggins a written copy of the required version of the DIC-

24 before requesting that she submit to the taking of a blood or breath specimen as

required by TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 724.015. The trial court concluded that the blood

evidence was collected in violation of Texas Transportation Code chapter 724, and

therefore was inadmissible. Based on that finding, the trial court granted Coggins’s

motion to suppress.

4 The record reflects that the officer obtained a search warrant for Coggins’s

blood after she did not consent to provide a specimen. Chapter 724 is not

applicable when, like here, there is a warrant to draw blood. Beeman v. State, 86

S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because Coggins’s blood was drawn

pursuant to a warrant, and she did not contest the validity of the warrant,

compliance with chapter 724 “was not necessary to satisfy the Fourth

Amendment.” Id.; see Stubbs, 2024 WL 5252044 at *3 (holding same and listing

similar decisions of courts of appeals in accord with Beeman).

The officer’s noncompliance with chapter 724 is immaterial. The State

obtained appellee’s blood pursuant to a warrant, and the test results are not

inadmissible for the reasons stated by the trial court.

We sustain the State’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Susanna Dokupil Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).