Brian Vincent Robinson v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-15-00098-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 28, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The document pertains to the appeal case of Brian Vincent Robinson against the State of Texas, filed in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Robinson was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine under one gram) and sought to suppress evidence obtained during a search following his arrest. The motion to suppress was denied by Judge John Gauntt in the 27th Judicial District Court of Bell County. Following a jury trial, Robinson was found guilty and sentenced to two years in state jail. He subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court certified his right to appeal. The State's brief does not request oral arguments and includes various sections: an index of authorities, statements of the case and facts, a summary of the State's argument, and the main argument concerning the alleged abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion to suppress. The brief also cites relevant case law and sections of the Texas Transportation Code that support its arguments.

The Appellant's appeal centers on the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. On September 25, 2012, Sgt. Tyler McEowen of the Killeen Police Department, acting on a tip from Detective Mallow regarding a vehicle suspected of involvement in narcotics trafficking, followed and observed the Appellant’s vehicle fail to signal a turn within 100 feet of an intersection on two occasions. After initiating a traffic stop, the Appellant admitted to not having a valid driver's license, which was subsequently confirmed as suspended. He was arrested for driving without a valid license. During a search incident to the arrest, a baggie containing a white powdery substance, later confirmed to be 0.04 grams of cocaine, was found on the Appellant. The trial court concluded that the traffic stop was justified due to the violation of signaling laws and upheld the search as lawful. 

The State argues that the traffic violation, as defined by Article 545.104(b) of the Texas Transportation Code, clearly mandates that a driver must signal a turn for at least 100 feet prior to making the turn, with no exceptions. The lawful stop led to the discovery of the Appellant's suspended license and subsequent arrest. The Appellant contends that the application of this statute resulted in an absurd outcome. The standard of review for the appellate court involves a bifurcated analysis, giving deference to the trial court's factual findings while reviewing the legal conclusions de novo. A ruling is deemed an abuse of discretion only if it is clearly erroneous, falling outside reasonable disagreement.

The Appellant acknowledges his failure to signal a turn at least 100 feet prior, constituting a traffic offense under Section 545.104(b) of the transportation code, and admits to driving with a suspended license, leading to lawful arrest per Section 521.457. He argues, however, that applying the statute's requirements to every turn is absurd and that the trial court erred by relying on this violation to justify his stop. He claims that a literal interpretation of the statute does not account for all situations and insists that the necessity to signal before deciding to turn infringes upon his freedom of movement. His argument includes an example posed to the arresting officer regarding a sudden decision to turn, which he deems absurd. The Appellant references a similar case, State v. Kidd, where the trial court granted a motion to suppress due to the perceived unreasonableness of the statute, but this was reversed on appeal. The appellate court emphasized the statute's clear requirements and the need for uniform enforcement, rejecting the notion that strict adherence leads to absurd results. The court underscored that allowing exceptions would render the statute ineffective and unenforceable.

In *Williams v. State*, the court addressed a complaint regarding the requirement for drivers to signal turns, which the appellant argued produced absurd outcomes, particularly when safety was not at risk. The court ruled that the statute's language was clear and unambiguous, mandating that drivers signal a turn continuously for at least 100 feet regardless of the circumstances. This interpretation was necessary to uphold the legislative intent, as any exception could render the requirement meaningless. The appellant was found to have violated this statute, providing the officer with authority to stop him. During the stop, it was discovered that the appellant was driving with a suspended license, giving the officer probable cause for arrest. A search incident to this arrest yielded cocaine. The legality of the traffic stop was affirmed because the violation was observable by the officer, establishing it as lawful under the Texas traffic code. The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence was upheld, affirming the conviction. The State of Texas requested the court to affirm the judgment of conviction. The document included certifications of compliance with procedural rules and service of the brief to the appellant's counsel.

The case of State v. Kidd addressed the legality of a traffic stop based on the defendant's failure to signal a turn at least 100 feet prior, as mandated by Section 545.104(b) of Texas law. The defendant argued that this requirement was unreasonable due to his unfamiliarity with the area and characterized it as "foolishly oppressive" in a free society. The trial court initially agreed and suppressed the evidence obtained from the stop. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the statute's language is clear and unambiguous in requiring continuous signaling 100 feet before a turn. The court rejected the notion that enforcing this statute would lead to absurd results, asserting that it provides a definitive guideline for both drivers and law enforcement. It cited precedent indicating that allowing exceptions based on a driver’s sudden decisions would effectively nullify the statute. The court reinforced that the legislature intended the statute to be followed as written, without exceptions based on subjective circumstances. Ultimately, it was established that the defendant did not signal as required, thus granting the officer authority to initiate the stop, leading to the discovery of further offenses, including driving with a suspended license and possession of cocaine. The primary legal issue remained the validity of the initial traffic stop.

An officer is legally permitted to stop and detain an individual for a traffic violation observed within their view, as established in Walter v. State. Specifically, failure to signal a turn constitutes a violation of Section 545.104 of the traffic code, which justifies a traffic stop, as noted in Perez v. State. The document acknowledges that while all criminal laws may restrict individual freedoms, this does not invalidate their purpose. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in State v. Elias, instructed a trial court to evaluate the lawfulness of a traffic stop under Section 545.104, which is characterized by clear and unambiguous language, mandating that drivers signal for all turns without exceptions. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and provides clear guidelines for both drivers and law enforcement. The trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence resulting from a lawful traffic stop and subsequent arrest for driving with a suspended license was determined not to be an abuse of discretion. The State of Texas requests affirmation of the judgment of conviction.

Mr. Kyle T. Lowe represented the Appellee, while Ms. Giselle Horton served as the Appellant’s counsel in a case presided over by Justices Patterson, Puryear, and Henson, with the opinion authored by Justice David Puryear. James D. Kidd faced charges for misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (DWI), stemming from an initial traffic stop conducted by Deputy Sheriff Anthony Sampson. The stop was based on Kidd's alleged failure to signal continuously for at least 100 feet before turning at a T-intersection, a violation of Texas Transportation Code section 545.104(b). Kidd contested the stop's legality, asserting it was unreasonable, leading to a motion to suppress evidence related to the DWI charge, which was granted at a hearing. The State appealed this decision, and the sole appellate issue was the constitutionality of the traffic stop. The appellate court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.