SALINAS, LEANDRA M. Appeal from County Court of Karnes County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0332-17 LEANDRA M. SALINAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS KARNES COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Appellant was convicted of misdemeanor possession of a substance in Penalty Group 2-A. See Tex. Health & Safety Code, §§ 481.1161, 481.1031(b)(2). In accord with a plea Salinas - 2 bargain, Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for twelve months and fined $50. Appellant appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding the trial court erred to deny the motion to suppress based on the officer’s failure to inform Appellant of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Salinas v. State, No. 04-16-00247-CR (Tex.App. – San Antonio March 15, 2017). The court held that Appellant’s statements to the officer, and the drugs found as a result of her statements, should have been suppressed as the products of an unwarned custodial interrogation. The State has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision on two grounds. First, the State disputes that Appellant was in custody at the time she made the contested statements. Second, the State contends that even if the Court of Appeals is correct in its custody determination, the court erred to suppress the drugs, which were physical fruits of any unwarned custodial statement, based on United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)(plurality opinion); and Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The Court of Appeals did not address the applicability of Patane and Baker when concluding that the Miranda violation rendered the drugs suppressible. Accordingly, we Salinas - 3 grant ground two of the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the drugs, as physical fruits of Appellant’s unwarned custodial statement, are required to be suppressed in light of Patane and Baker. Ground one of the State’s petition for discretionary review is refused with prejudice. Delivered September 13, 2017 Do not publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
