Second Court of Appeals

Week of June 15, 2015 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of June 15, 2015.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

In re S.T., No. 02-15-00014-CV (June 12, 2015) (orig. proceeding) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).

Held: In this divorce and SAPCR, Husband's third-party claim against the alleged biological father of the child born during the marriage is barred by limitations. When the child was born, Family Code section 160.607(b) did not include an exception to the statute of limitations for fraud based on a misrepresentation of the child's paternity, and the addition of the exception in 2011 was not merely a codification of the common law discovery rule. Because the alleged biological father's right to rely on the prior statute of limitations vested well before 2011, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Husband's suit against him to continue. Additionally, because Husband and Wife entered into stipulations in the divorce that would circumvent S.T.'s right to rely on his limitations defense, mandamus relief is proper.

Barnett v. State, No. 02-13-00609-CR (June 18, 2015) (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the detaining officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Barnett's vehicle. Other cooperating officers had relayed to the detaining officer specific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences, would have led him to believe that Barnett was involved in criminal activity. Further, the record supports the trial court's conclusion of law that Barnett "freely and voluntarily consented to the officers' search of his vehicle" and that such consent was "positive and unequivocal." Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Barnett's suppression motion.

Dissent: Barnett preserved his suppression issue, and the warrantless detention of Barnett based on information that he had committed a crime several hours earlier was not justified by any exception to the warrant requirement.