Dominic Miguel Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-24-00357-CR Jamison Whitaker, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 443rd District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Cynthia Ermatinger, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 49332CR JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jamison Whitaker appeals from his conviction for the offense of terroristic threat. After finding him guilty, the jury assessed punishment at forty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice— Institutional Division. In his sole issue, Whitaker contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.  BACKGROUND Because he was angry at his coworkers at Liberty Tire Recycling in Midlothian, Whitaker confronted a supervisor in the parking lot, saying “I got something for you,” while pointing his finger like a gun. He then went to his car, picked something up, put it back down, and returned to continue yelling at the supervisor. The next day, Whitaker showed a coworker, Frank Byers, an assault rifle he had in the back of his vehicle. Whitaker said he was going to “shoot the place up” and “kill these Mexicans” and the supervisor. Byers reported the threat to his superiors, and they called the police. Although police answered a call regarding a person in possession of a firearm who was making threats, Whitaker was arrested on outstanding traffic warrants. They did not search his vehicle. A tow truck was sent to tow Whitaker’s vehicle for safekeeping, but the towing company took the wrong vehicle. After Whitaker was removed from the premises, Pedro Garcia, the regional vice president for Liberty Tire Recycling, took the firearm from Whitaker’s vehicle and placed it in his office for safekeeping. The police returned about thirty minutes after arresting Whitaker. Garcia then gave the rifle to police. Whitaker was indicted for the offense of terroristic threat. Before trial, he filed a motion to suppress the rifle. He asserted that Garcia committed Whitaker v. State Page 2 burglary of a vehicle when he took the rifle and therefore it is inadmissible. The trial court denied the motion. The jury found Whitaker guilty, and this appeal ensued. MOTION TO SUPPRESS In his sole issue, Whitaker asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Garcia unlawfully obtained the rifle. He argues that Garcia committed the offense of burglary of a motor vehicle, making the evidence inadmissible. Standard of Review We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review. State v. Torres, 666 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). We afford almost total deference to the trial court's express or implied determination of historical facts and the trial court's rulings on mixed questions of law and fact, especially when those determinations are based on an assessment of credibility and demeanor. Id; State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We review pure questions of law, as well as mixed questions of law and fact that do not turn on an assessment of credibility and demeanor, on a de novo basis. Torres, 666 S.W.3d at 740-41. Thus, we review de novo the trial court's application of the law of seizure to the facts. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d at 590. The trial court is the sole factfinder at a suppression Whitaker v. State Page 3 hearing, and it may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony. Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's conclusion and reverse only if the trial court's decision is outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d at 590. We will sustain the trial court's ruling if it is supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. Id. We do not view motions to suppress in isolation, but in the context of the entire record. Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); State v. Hopper, 842 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, no pet.). Applicable Law Texas code of criminal procedure article 38.23(a) provides that evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of law is inadmissible in a trial of any criminal case. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.23(a). A person commits the offense of burglary of a vehic

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2025. In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-25-00092-CV BRIGHT HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant V. CANTILO & BENNETT, L.L.P., SPECIAL DEPUTY RECEIVER OF BRIGHT HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 455th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-23-008361 MEMORANDUM OPINION The underlying case is an insurance receivership proceeding under Chapter 443 of the Texas Insurance Code, in which the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) sought and placed Appellant Bright Health Management, Inc.’s subsidiary, Bright Health Insurance Company of Texas (BHICOT), into liquidation. Bright Health Management attempts to appeal the trial court’s May 6, 2025, order (the Order) that enforces a permanent injunction that was entered over two years ago and that requires Bright Health Management to produce certain books and records of BHICOT to the Special Deputy Receiver, Appellee Cantilo & Bennett, LLP (the Receiver). We issued a letter notifying the parties this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because the record does not contain either a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order unless any party filed a response showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Both parties submitted briefing on jurisdiction. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND In November 2023, the trial court signed an order appointing the Commissioner of the TDI as Liquidator of BHICOT and entered a permanent injunction ordering Bright Health Management to, among other things, promptly surrender BHICOT’s property to the Liquidator. The November 2023 order further authorized appointment of the Receiver to perform the Liquidator’s functions. Bright Health Management did not appeal the November 2023 order or the permanent injunction. A dispute later ensued regarding the practicalities and cost of turning over electronically stored documents that relate to BHICOT to the Receiver. The Receiver eventually filed a Motion to Enforce the Permanent Injunction and Bright Health Management filed a Response and Cross-Motion for Entry of Order 2 Governing Electronically Stored Information (ESI Cross-Motion). A hearing was held before the court-appointed Special Master, who issued a recommendation to the trial court. On May 6, 2025, the trial court confirmed the Special Master’s recommendation, granted the Receiver’s Motion to Enforce, denied Bright Health Management’s ESI-Cross Motion, and ordered Bright Health Management to produce certain categories of BHICOT documents to the Receiver. This appeal followed.1 DISCUSSION Bright Health Management first argues the Order is an appealable, interlocutory order because it “functions as a temporary injunction,” or alternatively, is an order that modifies an order appointing a receiver. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.014(a)(1), (a)(4). We disagree. The Order simply enforces the November 2023 permanent injunction that requires Bright Health Management to promptly surrender BHICOT’s property. It does not grant any modified or additional authority to the Receiver. Bright Health Management next argues the Order is a final judgment because it resolves all issues between Bright Health Management and the Receiver regarding production of documents. We disagree that this characterization of the Order, even if correct, renders the Order a final, appealable judgment. The underlying proceeding is an insurance receivership, and the Order does not dispose of all parties and claims in the receivership action. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 1 Bright Health Management contemporaneously filed a mandamus action challenging the Order, which we denied. In re Bright Health Mgmt., Inc., No. 15–25–00108–CV, 2025 WL 1872554, at *1 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. July 8, 2025, orig. proceeding). 3 195. There are certain discrete decisions by insurance receivership courts that are considered final, appealable judgments, but the Order at issue here is not one of those. See Tex. Ins. Code §§ 443.055 (order on petition commencing delinquency proceedings); 443.257(c) (final disposition of a disputed claim). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00240-CR Bradley Oliver, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2021-499-C1 JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals from a judgment revoking community supervision which was imposed on May 15, 2025 and signed by the trial court on that same date. Appellant wrote a pro se letter to the trial court asking to appeal the judgment which was mailed on July 16, 2025 and filed by the trial court clerk on July 18, 2025. Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel prior to the imposition of sentence, and nothing in the clerk’s record indicates that his attorney withdrew from his representation of Appellant after his sentence was imposed. The trial court appointed appellate counsel for Appellant on July 25, 2025, and counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. However, a motion for extension of time may be granted only if it is filed within 45 days of the imposition of sentence. Therefore, the pro se notice of appeal filed by Appellant on July 18, 2025 and later motion to extend and amended notice of appeal were not timely and this Court is unable to grant the motion for extension of time because we lack jurisdiction to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. See also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal is dismissed. STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 14, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed Do not publish CR25 Oliver v. State Page 2

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas JUDGMENT No. 04-25-00056-CR Alicia Angelita ARREDONDO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR11898 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE VALENZUELA, AND JUSTICE BRISSETTE In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. SIGNED August 6, 2025. _________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:59 AM Dkt. 5 ODSLJ NO. CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I JASON FLETCHER, Petitioner, v STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent. ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka, Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of the record, the court finds that self- represented Petitioner Eric Fletcher's (Fletcher) April 25, 2025 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody appears to seek affirmative relief in the nature of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court lacks jurisdiction to decide. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that case No. CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Fletcher seeking relief from the appropriate court having jurisdiction. Dated: Honolulu, Hawai i June 20, 2025. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge