Appellant Harley Allen Belk was Involved in a one-vehicle rollover accident on a farm-to-market road north of Ballinger. Belk was transported by EMS to a hospital, M who was Arrested for DWI and had at his blood Drawn for analysis. Belk was Charged by information with the misdemeanor of driving Offense while intoxicated, subsequent Offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003), § 49.09 (b) (West Supp. 2009). Following the denial of motion at his Thurs Suppress Evidence of His intoxication, Belk pleaded embarrassed Contender. The trial court then found Belk of the Guilty as Charged Offense and assessed punishment at confinement in county jail for a year and a $ 1,000 fine. However, the trial court Suspended imposition of the confinement and placed super Belk is a community vision for a period of one year. This appeal Followed. In two issues has appeal, Belk asserts That the trial court abused ITS discretion in denying at his motion Thurs Suppress Because, According to Belk, (1) at his warrant less arrest was not supported by probable cause and (2) at his consent Thurs not have at his blood Drawn for testing was involuntary. We will affirm the judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's ruling on a motion Thurs Suppress is appeal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Dixon, 206 SW3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The trial court is Given Almost complete deference in the ITS Determination of historical facts, Especially if hmmmm are based on an assessment of credibility and demeanor. State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 SW3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The turbid deference is afforded the trial court with respectfull Thurs ITS rulings is application of the law Thurs questions of fact-Thurs and mixed questions of law and fact is that if resolution of questions depends hmmmm is an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Montanez v. State, 195 SW3d 101, 108-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). However, for mixed questions of law and fact-That do Not That fall within category, a reviewing court conducts a de novo review. Amador v. State, 221 SW3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The trial Judge is the exclusive fact-finder at the suppression hearing. State v. Ross, 32 SW3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When the trial court does Not make express Findings of Fact, an appellate court must view the Evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, assuming That it made for months implica Findings of fact-That are supported by the record. Id. An appellate court will sustain the trial court's Decision if it concludes the Decision That is correct for months is a theory of law applicable to the case. Id. at 855-56.
ANALYSIS
Probable cause arrest Thurs
In at his first issue, Belk asserts That at his warrant less arrest for DWI was not supported by probable cause. Probable cause for a warrant less arrest exists if, at the article the-arrest is made, the facts and imprecision within the arresting officer's knowledge and of wakes them has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient Thurs warrant a Prudente man in Believing That the person Arrested had a committed or was committing an Offense. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Amador v. State, 275 SW3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The test for probable cause is an "objective one, unrelated to the Subjective Beliefs of the arresting officer, and it vehicles require a consideration of the totality of the imprecision Facing the arresting officer. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003); Amador, 275 S.W.3d at 878 "A finding of probable cause 'vehicles require more than just bare Suspicion' vain 'less please...'d Justify it... Conviction."' Amador, 275 SW3d at 878 (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 ( 1949)).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment