Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 23, 2018.
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 Dakota Directional Drilling, Inc., No. 02-18-00001-CV (Apr. 23, 2018) (orig. proceeding) (Pittman, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).
Held: Relator Gabriel Plascencia was driving a truck owned by Relator Dakota Directional Drilling when it collided with a vehicle driven by Lenard Bundick after Bundick slowed to make a U-turn. Real Parties in Interest Lesli Barwick and Renaldo Cardenas (Plaintiffs), passengers in Bundick’s car, subsequently sued Relators three days before the end of the limitations period. Relators answered and responded to requests for disclosure five months later. Thirty days later, Relators moved to designate Bundick as a responsible third party. Plaintiffs objected, and the trial court denied the designation on the basis that Relators had not timely responded to Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosure. However, Plaintiffs could not have been unfairly surprised or prejudiced by Bundick’s designation, and the designation was filed early in the lawsuit and well in advance of the 60th day before any trial date. As such, the trial court’s refusal to allow Relators to designate Bundick as a responsible third party was arbitrary and a clear abuse of discretion. Because Relators have no adequate remedy by appeal, they were entitled to mandamus relief.
Elliot v. State, No. 02-17-00011-CR (Apr. 12, 2018) (ordered published Apr. 26, 2018) (Meier, J., joined by Walker and Gabriel, JJ.).
Held: During a routine Terry frisk, the arresting officer in this case was justified in removing a cigarette pack from appellant’s pocket and seizing the methamphetamine found therein. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that he felt “a card deck-sized object” in appellant’s left pocket that had “sharp angles” and “hard edges.” The officer further described the object as “something angular” that had a “little density to it.” Wanting to ensure that it was not a weapon or something containing a weapon, the officer removed the object from appellant’s pocket. It was then that the officer discovered that the object was a “cigarette container with the top flipped back.” And there, in plain view, the officer observed that the cigarette container contained what the officer’s training and experience had taught him was methamphetamine.