Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



                                    NO. 03-23-00742-CR



                              Mark Jason Normand, Appellant

                                              v.

                                The State of Texas, Appellee


              FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
       NO. CR2021-418D, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING



                ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION


              Mark Jason Normand was charged with possessing at least four grams but less

than 200 grams of a controlled substance (heroin). See Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102,

.115(d). The indictment included an enhancement paragraph alleging that he had previously

been convicted of a felony offense.    See Tex. Penal Code § 12.42. After being charged,

Normand filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his detention.    The trial court

denied the motion, and Normand filed a motion requesting that the trial court issue findings

of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ruling. Following the trial court’s denial of his

motion, Normand entered a plea-bargain agreement and pleaded true to the enhancement

allegation. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. See id. §§ 12.32, .42.

Normand appealed the trial court’s suppression ruling. The record before this Court does not

contain any findings of fact or conclusions of law, and Normand has filed a motion to abate the
appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the trial court to enter findings and

conclusions related to its ruling.

               The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “upon the request of the losing party

on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings,” which the court

defined as “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), including “explicit credibility determination[s],” State v. Mendoza,
365 S.W.3d 666, 673
 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). 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.”
Id. at 671
. Moreover, “Rule 44.4

authorizes the court of appeals to remand the case to the trial court so that the court of appeals

is not forced to infer facts from an unexplained ruling.” Cullen,
195 S.W.3d at 698
 (citing Tex.

R. App. P. 44.4).

               Accordingly, we grant Normand’s motion, abate the appeal, and remand the cause

to the trial court so that it may make findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to its

denial of Normand’s motion to suppress. The trial court is instructed to file with this Court a

supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings of fact and conclusions of law no later

than January 29, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). This appeal will be reinstated once the

supplemental clerk’s record is filed.



                                                  2
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Abated and Remanded

Filed: December 28, 2023

Do Not Publish




                                           3