Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

in Re Wendy Jeanette Wingfield, in Her Capacity as Independent of the Estate of O. D. Wingfield

in Re Wendy Jeanette Wingfield, in Her Capacity as Independent of the Estate of O. D. Wingfield
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 20, 2005

in Re Wendy Jeanette Wingfield, in Her Capacity as Independent of the Estate of O. D. Wingfield

Opinion

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 


No. 10-05-00054-CV

 

In re Wendy Jeanette Wingfield,

in her Capacity as Independent

Executor of the Estate of

O. D. Wingfield, Deceased

 

 


Original Proceeding

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

 

On March 15, 2005, after receiving a settlement agreement that appeared to resolve all of the issues in this original proceeding, we sent a letter to the parties stating that “the petition for writ of mandamus will be dismissed as moot unless, within fourteen (14) days after the date of this letter, grounds are shown for continuing the proceeding.”  No response has been received.  Thus, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray dissents for the reasons expressed in his “Dissenting Opinion to Order Lifting Stay” issued in this cause on March 2, 2005.)

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 20, 2005

[OT06]

ficer Gillman that Lenox crossed over the “fogline” multiple times.  Further, a video of Lenox crossing the line was introduced into evidence.  The Texas Transportation Code allows an operator of a motor vehicle, in limited circumstances, to “drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely.”  Tex. Trans. Code Ann. § 545.058(a) (Vernon 1999).  However, the record does not show any of the exceptions in Section 545.058(a).  See id.  The trial court found, based on this evidence, that Lenox violated Section 545.058(a).  Id.

We agree that Officer Gillman had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the traffic stop was legal.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lenox’s motion to suppress evidence.  We overrule Lenox’s sole issue.

Conclusion

      Having overruled Lenox’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

BILL VANCE

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 24, 2006__________

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.