IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00282-CV
Carl Ruffino,
Appellant
v.
Tranum, Inc. d/b/a
Tranum Auto Group and
James E. Tranum,
Appellees
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 53172-CV
ORDER TO WRITE OFF FEES
We render this order during our plenary power in this case. Tex. R. App. P. 19.1(a).
On May 18, 2005 this appeal was dismissed due to Ruffino’s failure to pay the filing fee or comply with the rules regarding proceeding as an indigent appellant. See Ruffino v. Tranum, Inc., No. 10-04-00282-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3783 (Tex. App.—Waco, May 18, 2005, no pet. h.).
Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. Tex. R. App. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to Tex. R. App. P., Order Regarding Fees (July 21, 1998). See also Tex. R. App. P. 5; 10th Tex. App. (Waco) Loc. R. 6; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207(b) and 51.901 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. Tex. R. App. P. 2.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Fees written off
Order issued and filed July 13, 2005
[CV06]
tino'> Acton testified at the hearing. She stated that she hates needles and did not want her blood drawn and did not consent to any blood being drawn. She agreed that the blood was taken over her refusal and objection. She also stated that she refused the IV and the sutures because of her fear of needles.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When a trial court makes fact findings, the appellate court determines whether the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling) supports these fact findings. Id at 818, 819. The appellate court then reviews the trial court's legal ruling de novo unless the trial court's supported-by-the-record explicit fact findings are also dispositive of the legal ruling. Id.
The trial court found that Acton did not consent to the drawing of her blood. There is ample evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, to support that finding. The trial court’s finding is also dispositive of the legal ruling. Accordingly, the State’s sole issue is overruled.
Conclusion
Having overruled the State’s issue, we affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the blood evidence.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 8, 2009
Do not publish
[CR25]