Opinion
AP-77,092
06-28-2023
HECTOR ACOSTA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
Do not publish
ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 1513043D IN THE 396TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TARRANT COUNTY
Keller, P.J., and Yeary, J., concurred.
ORDER
Per curiam
This is a direct appeal of Appellant's capital murder conviction and resulting death sentence in the 396th District Court of Tarrant County, in Cause No. 1513043D, styled The State of Texas v. Hector Acosta. In his first three points of error, Appellant contends that his custodial statements to law enforcement should have been suppressed because: (1) the warnings given to him in Spanish concerning his Fifth Amendment rights did not comply with Miranda and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22, §§ 2(a), 3(a)(2); (2) he did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his Miranda rights; and (3) his statements were involuntary under the circumstances.
Appellant sought to suppress his custodial statements to law enforcement in a pretrial motion. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the trial court orally found that Appellant was given the warnings set forth in Article 38.22, Section 2(a), that Appellant understood the warnings, and that Appellant "freely and voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and answered the officers' questions." Based on those findings, the court orally denied the motion. The trial court later memorialized the ruling by signing a document entitled Motion Index and Rulings, which indicated that the motion had been "Denied."
Article 38.22, Section 6, 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. art. 38.22, §6. Such findings are mandatory, required in all cases concerning voluntariness, regardless of whether the parties request the findings or object to their absence; "[t]he statute has no exceptions." Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see Sandoval v. State, 665 S.W.3d 496, 519-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Green v. State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The trial court may satisfy the requirements of Article 38.22, Section 6, by dictating its findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court reporter, who then transcribes them, files them with the district clerk, and makes them part of the appellate record. Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
But, whether set forth in a separate order filed in the clerk's record or dictated into the reporter's record and then transcribed and made part of the appellate record, the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law that are adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis on which to review the trial court's application of the law to the facts. Wicker, 740 S.W.2d at 783; see Alford v. State, 358 S.W.3d 647, 652 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (observing that Article 38.22 findings need not be made with "minute specificity" but must be sufficiently detailed to provide a basis on which to review the trial court's application of law to facts).
In this case, the trial court dictated oral findings into the record at the conclusion of the suppression hearing, and those findings were transcribed by the court reporter, filed with the district clerk, and made part of the appellate record. See Murphy, 112 S.W.3d at 601. However, the court's dictated findings are insufficient in detail to explain the basis of the court's ruling. See Sinegal v. State, 582 S.W.2d 135, 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ("The findings should resolve the disputed fact issues upon which the grounds of error are based." (citing Hester v. State, 535 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Quinn v. State, 558 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). As a result, the trial court's findings do not provide this Court with an adequate basis on which to review the trial court's application of law to facts.
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(2), an appellate court can order the trial court to "prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by law" (emphasis added) and have the clerk supplement the record with those findings and conclusions without abating the case. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2). Assuming that the findings and conclusions were required by law to be made, then the record can simply be supplemented without abating the case.
Therefore, we direct the trial court to prepare and file findings of fact and conclusions of law, in compliance with Article 38.22, Section 6, regarding the voluntariness claims raised by Appellant at trial. In addition to any credibility determinations made by the court, the court's findings and conclusions should address the following issues that Appellant raised:
(1) whether the warnings given to Appellant in Spanish sufficiently advised him of his Fifth Amendment rights and complied with the dictates of Miranda and Article 38.22;
(2) whether Appellant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights-specifically, whether Appellant understood his rights given the Spanish translation of the warnings, whether Appellant lacked familiarity with the criminal justice system and whether this alleged lack of familiarity, if any, rendered
Appellant's waiver of rights invalid, and whether law enforcement failed to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and whether this alleged failure, if any, rendered Appellant's waiver of his rights invalid;
(3) whether Appellant's custodial statements were otherwise involuntary under the totality of the circumstances-specifically, whether Appellant was fatigued due to lack of sleep and whether this alleged fatigue, if any, rendered his statements involuntary, whether Appellant was unfamiliar with the American legal system and whether this alleged unfamiliarity, if any, rendered his statements involuntary, whether Appellant was deprived of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and whether this alleged deprivation, if any, rendered his statements involuntary, whether Appellant was inadequately warned of his Miranda rights (due to the translation issue) and whether the alleged inadequate warnings, if they were inadequate, rendered his statements involuntary, and whether the detectives failed to inform Appellant of the subject of the interrogation and whether this alleged failure, if any, rendered his statements involuntary.
The trial court clerk must then prepare, certify, and file in this Court a supplemental clerk's record containing the court's findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2). The findings and conclusions are to be made, and the supplemental clerk's record is to be filed, within 60 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2023.