Gonzalez v. State

A jury found Rigoberto Rodriguez Gonzalez guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine. He appeals from his conviction, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress items seized and statements made during a traffic stop of his vehicle, denying his motion to strike for cause a prospective juror who he claims lacked proficiency in the English language, and failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine. None of the arguments presents grounds for reversal, so we affirm the conviction. 1. Gonzalez contends the motion to suppress items seized during a search of his vehicle should have been granted because the stop of his car, purportedly for failing to properly signal a lane change, was pretextual. We disagree.

In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, our responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision, and we must construe the evidence most favorably to the findings and judgment.1 We adopt the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility of the witnesses unless they are clearly erroneous.2 The trial court is the trier of fact, and its findings are analogous to those of a jury, and we will not disturb these findings if any evidence supports them.3