Opinion
No. 05-05-00098-CR
Opinion Filed February 22, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 20314. Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals his conviction for robbery. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at thirty years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a videotape of his custodial statement. At approximately 11:30 p.m. on June 24, 2000, appellant approached Stella Miller and her young niece at a convenience store. Armed with a BB gun, appellant instructed Miller to get into her car and drive. Instead, she ran into the store with her niece, not realizing the gun was a BB gun. Miller believed appellant had a pistol and feared he was going to shoot her in the back. Appellant then drove off in Miller's car. Appellant was arrested later that night driving Miller's car. Miller's purse and appellant's BB gun were found on the front passenger seat. While in custody, appellant gave a videotaped statement in which he admitted possessing the BB gun and taking Miller's car. Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the videotaped statement alleging it was not voluntary. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the videotape was admitted at trial. In a single point of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his videotaped statement. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, appellant testified he was so intoxicated at the time he gave the statement that he did not recall giving it. On appeal, appellant asserts the statement was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the record shows appellant was not "fully mentally aware" at the time he gave the statement. He relies on his demeanor on the videotape as well as his comment on the videotape that he only had "about half" his wits about him. We review a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress under an abuse of discretion standard. Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). This court affords almost total deference to the trial court's determination of the facts and will reverse only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Intoxication does not per se render a confession involuntary. Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 650 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Instead, the issue is whether the defendant's intoxication rendered him incapable of making an independent, informed decision to confess. Id. Appellant's videotaped statement was taken about 8:40 a.m. the morning after the offense and several hours after appellant's arrest. On the videotape, the officer expressly asked appellant if he was under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances and appellant responded "I guess it has wore off by now." Although appellant joked he had only about half his wits about him when he gave the statement, the trial court could review appellant's demeanor on the tape and conclude he was able to make a an independent, informed decision to give a statement. Appellant also asserts his statement was not voluntary because police deceived him into believing he was being questioned about unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, not robbery. However, contrary to appellant's assertion, police are not required to inform a suspect of the specific crime being investigated before a confession is voluntary. Martinez v. State, 131 S.W.3d 22, 34 n. 2 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.); see also Creager v. State, 952 S.W.2d 852, 856 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (deception will not render confession involuntary unless it was calculated to produce an untruthful confession or violates due process). We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.