in the Matter of the Marriage of Jamie Lizama and Rosemary Lizama and in the Interest of Bianca Lizama, Erica Lizama, and Jamie Lizama, Minor Children

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-02-00377-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 4, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rosemary Lizama appealed the trial court's award of primary custody of their children to her ex-husband, Jaime Lizama, arguing that the decision was unsupported by evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that no court reporter's record was filed, and Rosemary did not make arrangements to obtain one. Consequently, the court presumed that the missing evidence supported the trial court's decision, leading to the overruling of her issue. Additionally, Rosemary did not file any documents to proceed as an indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1. 

In a separate case, Dayle Payton Riggan appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest for public intoxication, which led to his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The Amarillo police officer testified at the suppression hearing, detailing the circumstances of Riggan's arrest following a traffic accident. The officer noted signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol and Riggan's condition, which indicated a potential danger to the public. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress based on this evidence.

The officer arrested the appellant for public intoxication and, during a search incident to the arrest, discovered a baggie containing a suspected narcotic (believed to be crystal meth) and a digital scale on the appellant’s person. The legal issue on appeal concerns whether the officer had probable cause for the public intoxication arrest, with the appellant arguing that such probable cause was absent. The trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, with deference to the trial court's factual determinations while applying the law de novo. 

Public intoxication is defined as appearing in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that one may endanger themselves or others. The legal definition of a "public place" includes areas accessible to the general public. Intoxication is characterized by a lack of normal mental or physical faculties due to alcohol or substance use. The State must demonstrate potential danger, not actual danger, which can be inferred from the circumstances. 

Probable cause is established when an officer has sufficient trustworthy information that a reasonable person would believe an offense has been committed. In this case, evidence supporting probable cause included the appellant’s vehicle being partially off the road, his apparent unconsciousness in the car, a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and the need for assistance from the officer. These factors led the officer to reasonably conclude that the appellant was intoxicated and posed a potential danger to the public.

The court found sufficient evidence to support the officer's probable cause to believe the appellant was intoxicated and posed a danger to himself or others. While the appellant argued that the lack of evidence linking his vehicle's curb-jumping incident to alcohol impaired his arrest's legitimacy, the court determined that causation was not necessary for establishing probable cause for public intoxication. The officer's observations of the appellant being coherent and cooperative did not negate the probable cause. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the appellant's arguments. Additionally, the appellant faced enhanced penalties for a prior felony conviction related to a controlled substance offense, which was unrelated to the issue of probable cause for his arrest. The ruling clarified that an officer is not required to observe driving behavior to arrest for public intoxication.