Opinion
13-22-00367-CR
08-14-2023
CARLOS GABRIEL CHUMACERO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2 (b).
On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Order Per Curiam
ORDER OF ABATEMENT
PER CURIAM
Appellant Carlos Gabriel Chumacero appeals his convictions for murder, a first-degree felony, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c); aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, see id. § 22.02(a)(2); unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony, see id. § 46.04(e); and tampering with physical evidence, a third-degree felony. See id. § 37.09(c). Before trial, appellant filed motions to suppress a video-recorded confession he had made to his associate, Henry Roland Gonzales Jr. Appellant argued, among other things, that the confession was inadmissible because it was not made voluntarily. The State argued, among other things, that regardless of whether it was made voluntarily, the confession could not be suppressed because it was not the product of a custodial interrogation and there was no police involvement in its acquisition. After hearings on April 27 and August 16, 2021, the trial court denied the motion to suppress; however, the record contains no written findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning the trial court's ruling.
Article 38.22, § 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states in relevant part:
In all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the statement has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of law and fact by the court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the specific finding of facts upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause.Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 6. The court of criminal appeals has held that "written findings are required in all cases concerning voluntariness. [Article 38.22, § 6] has no exceptions." Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Thus, a court of appeals errs by not abating for the requisite findings, even where neither party requested written findings at any level of the proceedings. See id.
In this case, the legal basis for the trial court's denial of appellant's motions to suppress is unclear. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding appellant's motions to suppress. The findings and conclusions shall specifically state whether the denial of the motions to suppress was based on a finding that appellant's video-recorded confession was voluntarily made. If so, the trial court shall enter an order in accordance with the statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22, § 6. If the trial court determines that the denial of the motions to suppress was not based on a finding that appellant's confession was voluntarily made, but was rather based on some other legal rationale, the trial court shall set forth that determination in a written order.
The trial court shall enter an order as directed herein and cause the order to be filed as a supplemental clerks' record with the Clerk of this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental clerk's record and upon further order of this Court.