Opinion
04-21-00471-CR
04-04-2023
Caleb Patrick DANIELS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-10-00155-CRF Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On February 8, 2023, this appeal was submitted on briefs. In one of his appellate issues, appellant argues the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion regarding the admissibility of statements he made during a July 25, 2018 interview with law enforcement. Appellant's pretrial motion requested, inter alia, a determination of whether the statements he made during that interview were voluntary. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.21, 38.22. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion and denied the motion on the basis that appellant's statements were not the product of custodial interrogation. However, the trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of appellant's statements.
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "[i]n all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused," the trial 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted this statute as requiring written findings of fact and conclusions of law "in all cases concerning voluntariness." Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Section 6 of article 38.22 "has no exceptions," even in cases where the parties did not request written findings on that issue. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has also held that whether a defendant's statement was voluntary is a separate inquiry from whether his statements were the product of custodial interrogation. See Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 172-73 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). "Section 6 of Article 38.22 applies to both an accused's custodial and non-custodial statements because it provides that only 'voluntary' statements may be admitted." Id. at 171.
We ABATE this appeal and REMAND this matter to the trial court. We ORDER the trial court to prepare and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of appellant's July 25, 2018 statements to law enforcement by May 4, 2023. See Vasquez, 411 S.W.3d at 920; see also Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We ORDER the District Clerk of Frio County to file a supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law by May 15, 2023. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2).
We WITHDRAW the February 8, 2023 submission date in this appeal. A new submission date will be assigned at a later date.
It is so ORDERED.