You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Grady Kenton Coldiron

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-03-00187-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 19, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves the State of Texas appealing a trial court's decision to grant motions to suppress evidence in a driving while intoxicated (DWI) case against Grady Kenton Coldiron. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's order, focusing on the legality of Coldiron's warrantless arrest. Deputy Agnelli responded to a vehicle accident involving Coldiron and detected signs of intoxication, but neither Agnelli nor Trooper Del Bosque witnessed Coldiron driving. Coldiron was arrested for DWI based on field sobriety tests and his admission to drinking. The trial court found that the arrest did not satisfy the requirements of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.01, which allows warrantless arrests only if an offense is committed in an officer's presence. The State argued probable cause for public intoxication, but this was not preserved at trial, resulting in procedural default. The appellate court assumed the trial court's implicit findings supported suppression and found no misapplication of law, leading to an affirmation of the suppression orders due to lack of preserved arguments.

Legal Issues Addressed

Preservation of Issues for Appeal

Application: The appellate court emphasized the necessity for issues to be raised at the trial level to be considered on appeal, leading to the affirmation of the suppression orders due to unraised arguments.

Reasoning: The State's other grounds for suppression, not presented at the hearing, were not considered.

Probable Cause and Suppression of Evidence

Application: The court held that the State's failure to preserve arguments regarding probable cause for public intoxication at the trial level resulted in procedural default, thus affirming the suppression of evidence.

Reasoning: The State conceded that Coldiron could not be arrested without a warrant for driving while intoxicated, but argued that the officers had probable cause for public intoxication. This argument was not raised in the trial court, resulting in a procedural default that precluded the appellate court from considering it.

Warrantless Arrest under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.01

Application: The court found that the arrest of the defendant was illegal as it did not meet the requirements for a warrantless arrest under Article 14.01, which necessitates that the offense be committed in the presence of the officer.

Reasoning: Since neither officer witnessed Coldiron operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the arrest lacked justification under the warrantless arrest exceptions.