NOS. 07-11-0100-CR
07-11-0101-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JUNE 3, 2011
______________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellant
v.
ALEJANDRO GUADALUPE GARCIA,
Appellee
___________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NOS. 52,533-E & 52,534-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, PRESIDING
__________________________
ABATEMENT AND REMAND
__________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK, and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before the court is the State’s motion to abate the appeal and remand
the matter back to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We
grant the motion.
According to the record before us, the State’s indictments were dismissed for
violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 51.14 (Vernon 2006). The record reflects that the indictments were orally dismissed
on February 7, 2011, which decision was then memorialized in writing on February 22nd.
The State filed its request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 14th.
However, none were ever executed.
In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (involving a
motion to suppress evidence), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "[u]pon the
request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state
its essential findings." Then it determined that the refusal to so state its findings and
conclusions prevented the meaningful review of the decision. Id. at 698. Several years
later, the same court considered this principle in relation to a trial court’s dismissal due
to purported violations of the IADA. See State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009). In holding that the trial court should have executed pertinent findings and
conclusions, it explained that the case involved more than merely an examination of
paperwork to determine whether the requirements of the IADA were met; the trial court
also had before it various material factual disputes necessitating resolution. The same
is true here, and they involve notice and its receipt.
Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. We also direct the trial court to execute those findings of fact
and conclusions of law pertinent to its decision to dismiss the proceeding and as
required by State v. Cullen and State v. Votta, supra. Those findings and conclusions
must be incorporated into a supplemental district clerk’s record and filed with the clerk
of this court on or before July 1, 2011. Should further time be needed to perform these
acts, the trial court must request it by July 1, 2011. Upon the filing of the supplemental
clerk's record, the appeal will be reinstated.
2
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3