IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00218-CR
RAFAEL SUAREZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 82nd District Court
Falls County, Texas
Trial Court No. 9279
ABATEMENT ORDER
A jury convicted Appellant Rafael Suarez of continuous sexual abuse of a young
child, and the trial court assessed his punishment at sixty years’ imprisonment. This
appeal ensued. In his first issue, Suarez contends that the trial court violated his Sixth
Amendment right to an open trial because his family members were excluded from the
courtroom on the first day of the proceedings.
To rebut the presumption of openness and to allow closure of an
accused’s trial, or any part thereof,
[(1)] the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an
overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [(2)] the
closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that
interest, [(3)] the trial court must consider reasonable
alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [(4)] it must make
findings adequate to support the closure.
Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321, 328-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Waller v. Georgia,
467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has
described the trial court’s findings as the “linchpin of the Waller test.” Id. at 329.
The State has filed a motion to abate this appeal to allow the trial court to issue
written findings under Waller. See, e.g., Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499, 501 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012). It appears from the record that no written findings were requested
by the parties or issued by the trial court. The trial court provided only oral responses
to Suarez’s complaint. We therefore grant the State’s motion, abate this appeal, and
remand this case to the trial court so that it can issue written findings.
The trial court is ordered to issue its written findings within twenty-one days of
the date of this Order. The trial court clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record
containing the written findings within thirty-five days after the date of this Order.
The State’s first motion for extension of time in which to file its brief is granted.
The State’s brief is due thirty days after the date the supplemental clerk’s record is filed
with this Court.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Suarez v. State Page 2
Justice Scoggins
Motions granted, cause abated
Order issued and filed April 16, 2015
Do not publish
Suarez v. State Page 3