The following is a summary of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals from April 2025. The summary is an overview; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent history is current as of October 6, 2025.
SPEEDY TRIAL – DWI: Defendant was not denied right to speedy trial despite over three-year delay following arrest and indictment.
Fleming v. State, No. 03-24-00011-CR (Tex. App.—Austin May 8, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Fleming was arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated with a child passenger in September 2019, released on bond, and indicted in March 2020. Fleming was arrested again in May 2023, and she filed a motion for speedy trial and a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial in June 2023. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in September 2023, and Fleming pleaded guilty in October 2023. On appeal, Fleming argued that the trial court erred by denying her motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. The court expressed “some concerns about the State’s delay in pursuing the charge in this case.” However, “considering and balancing the relevant factors,” the court concluded that the trial court’s ruling “was supported by the record and correct under the applicable law.” The delay of over three years weighed against the State, as did the unexplained reason for much of the delay. Also, Fleming asserted her right to a speedy trial promptly after learning that she was under indictment, which weighed “somewhat in her favor.” However, Fleming failed to make any showing of prejudice, and this factor weighed heavily against her.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE – TRAFFIC STOPS: Search of defendant following traffic stop was permissible as search incident to arrest, even though search occurred before arrest.
Normand v. State, No. 03-23-00742-CR (Tex. App.—Austin May 1 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Police officers initiated a traffic stop on Normand’s vehicle for failing to stop behind the white line at an intersection. Within a few minutes of the stop, Normand admitted that he did not have a valid driver’s license and had been driving without a license, which was an arrestable offense. During the stop but before the arrest, the officers searched Normand and discovered in his pocket a clear container with a crystalline substance inside and an Altoids tin with a dark substance inside. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine and heroin, and Normand was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Normand filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s suppression ruling on the ground that the officers were authorized to search Normand incident to arrest. First, the court rejected Normand’s contention that during the suppression hearing, the trial court improperly relied on the officers’ reports and recordings without any accompanying witness testimony. The court observed that Normand did not preserve this complaint in the court below and that even if he had, “[t]he Code of Criminal Procedure does not require that witnesses testify before a ruling on a motion to suppress may be made.” Turning to the merits, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Normand for driving without a license and, therefore, to search him incident to arrest, an exception to the search-warrant requirement. “The fact that the search occurred before the arrest did not render the exception inapplicable.” Additionally, “the applicability of the exception is not altered by the fact that Normand was ultimately arrested for and charged with possession of illegal drugs because an officer may arrest an individual for an offense discovered during the investigation of another offense.” The court also rejected Normand’s contention that the amount of time between the search and the arrest rendered the search impermissible. The court explained that the approximately twelve-minute gap between the discovery of narcotics on Normand’s person and his arrest was permissible in light of the manner in which the police conducted the search and that “[t]he decision by the police to divide the search up did not render Normand’s search so separated from his arrest that the search could not have qualified as one incident to arrest.” Finally, the court rejected Normand’s argument that the search was not done to effectuate the justifications for a search incident to arrest. The court explained that “a search incident to arrest can also be justified on the need for police to obtain weapons that could be used to assault an officer or help the defendant escape.” In this case, police found a switchblade knife in Normand’s pocket.