From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Dec 15, 2022
No. 09-21-00209-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 15, 2022)

Opinion

09-21-00209-CR

12-15-2022

DAVID SCOTT ROSE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27535 (4 Counts)

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, J.J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In a single issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the video statement of his oral statement to law enforcement where he challenged the voluntariness of the statement, and in failing to give a jury instruction under Articles 38.22 and 38.23. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 38.22, 38.23.

In Appellant's motion to suppress in the trial court, he argued that "[a]ny statement defendant might have made was involuntary, and in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, of article I § 10 of the Texas Constitution, and of articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure." After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The record does not reflect that either party requested written findings, and none were made.

Section 6 of Article 38.22 requires written findings when the voluntariness of a confession is litigated and the trial court finds the confession to be voluntary and admissible. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP-77,081, 2022 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 844, at *33 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2022). The statute requires written findings even if they were not requested by the parties because "'written findings are required in all cases concerning voluntariness'" and "'[t]he statute has no exceptions.'" See id. (quoting Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). On appeal, Appellant does not challenge the failure of the trial court to make written findings. That said, we note the wording of the statute requires such findings. Therefore, we abate the appeal and remand this case for the trial court to make written findings in compliance with Article 38.22. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP-77,081, 2022 Tex.Crim.App. Unpub. LEXIS 114, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2022); see also Sandoval, 2022 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 844, at **33-34. The trial court shall forward its findings within 30 days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated upon our receipt of the trial court's findings.

ORDER ENTERED.


Summaries of

Rose v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Dec 15, 2022
No. 09-21-00209-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 15, 2022)
Case details for

Rose v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SCOTT ROSE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Dec 15, 2022

Citations

No. 09-21-00209-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 15, 2022)