Carlos Rodriguez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Kendall County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00304-CR
Carlos RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 00-119-CR
Honorable Bill Palmer, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2003

AFFIRMED

Appellant Carlos Rodriguez was arrested after the car he was driving veered into the median of I-10, slid sideways for four car lengths, overcorrected, and then forced another car from the right lane of traffic. The trial court denied Rodriguez's motion to suppress the testimony of Deputy Lori Smith and Deputy Rusty Cass, the arresting officers. At that hearing, Rodriguez argued that the stop and resulting arrest were illegal because he committed no traffic violation, and also because the stop was made without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Rodriguez repeats these arguments on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

When reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to that court's determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court's application of the law of search and seizure. See Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The facts are not in dispute in this case. Therefore, we decide de novo whether the facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697-98 (1996); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

The State presented evidence at the motion to suppress hearing that Rodriguez violated the Transportation Code by failing to maintain a single lane, failing to change lanes safely, failing to signal a lane change, and driving recklessly. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 545.060; 545.103; 545.104; 545.401 (Vernon 1996). These traffic violations provided the deputy who witnessed them reasonable suspicion for the stop. See Garcia v. State, 827 S.W.2d 937, 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Accordingly, Deputy Smith was justified in stopping Rodriguez. We overrule both of Rodriguez's issues.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH