Opinion
No. 05-03-00656-CR.
Opinion Filed April 27, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F-0253020-L. Affirm.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and RICHTER.
OPINION
Appellant Willie Reese Valentine appeals his conviction for burglary of a building. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police after his arrest. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. The grand jury indicted appellant for burglary of a building. Appellant filed a motion to suppress a statement he made to police after his arrest. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Ingrid Jaschock testified she received a call for a theft in progress. Jaschock proceeded to the scene and arrested appellant. While Jaschock was filling in a "book-in" sheet, she asked appellant routine questions about his health and his age. Appellant interrupted and asked Jaschock what he was being charged with. Jaschock replied it would be either theft or burglary. Appellant responded he would rather be charged with theft and that the property he allegedly stole was not worth very much. In his sole point of error, appellant contends admission of the statement he made to Jaschock violated Miranda and article 38.22 of the code of criminal procedure. It is well-established Miranda and article 38.22 apply only to statements made as the result of custodial interrogation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon Supp. 2004); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 (1966); see also Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 263 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). "Custodial interrogation" includes any words or actions on the part of police that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980); Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Questions routinely asked during an arrest and book-in do not constitute custodial interrogation. Edwards v. State, 813 S.W.2d 572, 578 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd); see also Innis, 446 U.S. at 300-01; McCambridge, 712 S.W.2d 499, 505 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Here, appellant did not make the incriminating statement in response to any question Jashcock asked. Rather, he volunteered the statement while Jaschock was asking him routine book-in questions unrelated to the offense. Appellant's statement was not the result of custodial interrogation. See Edwards, 813 S.W.2d at 577. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.