## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D –1159–07 A LF R ED O LE Y V A PE C I N A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

TARRA NT CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P. J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on.

O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , A l fr edo Leyva Peci na, w as found gui l tyof m ur derand s ent ence d t o l i fe in p riso n . H e a p p e a led h is c o n v ictio n , arg u in g th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement s t o the pol i ce. T he courtof appe al s aff i r m ed the tr i al c o u rt . P e c in a v . S ta te , N o. 2- 05- 456- C R ( T ex. A pp. –For tW or th M ay3, 2007) ( not des i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) , 2007 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3424. W e gr ant ed r evi ew t o cons i derPecina–Pag e 2

w hetheran att orneys houl d have be en pr ovi ded forA ppel l antbefor e he w as ques t i oned b yth e p o l i c e , a n d w h e th e rA p p e l l a n tw a i v e d h i s F i f th a n d S i x th A m e n d m e n tr i g h t s . We hol d thatA ppel l ant ’ s r i ght s t o couns el had att ache d w hen he w as arr ai gned, and thathe d id n o t in itia te th e c o n ta c t w ith th e p o lic e a s re q u ir e d to v a lid ly w a iv e th o s e ri g h ts . T h e re f o re , h e sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n q u e stio n e d w ith o u t an a tto rn e yp re se n t. W e w ill rever se the co urtof ap peals . FACTS A p p e lla n t a n d h is w if

e , M ic h e lle , liv e d w ith h e r f a th e r a n d h e r s is te r, G a b ri e la . O ne eve ni ng, G abr i el a ca m e home and found A ppel l antand M i chel l e l y i ng on the fl oor of thei rbedr oom , bl eedi ng fr om s t ab w ounds . W hen s he pi cked up the phone t o cal l 911, A p p e llan t sto o d u p a n d c a m e to w a rd h e r. S h e lef t th e a p a rtm e n t an d w e n t to g e t a n e ig h b o r. T h e n e ig h b o r c a lle d 9 1 1 a n d th e n w e n t w ith G a b ri e la b a c k to th e a p a rt m e n t. W hen pol i ce a nd par amedi cs arr i ved, theyfound A ppel l anton the fl oors uffe r i ng fr om s t ab w ounds and t ook hi m t o the hos pi t al . M i chel l e w as pr onounced de ad atthe s cene , and i tw as l at er det erm i ned that s he h ad b een st abb ed m ore than fi ftyt i m es. B eca us e the pol i ce be l i eved thatA ppel l anthad murde r ed hi s w i fe a nd had att empt ed t o ki l l hi m s el f, det ect i ves pr epar ed a w arr antforhi s arr es t . T he det ect i ves br oughta Spani s h- s peaki ng m agi s tr at e, J udge M addock, t o the hos pi t al t o arr ai gn A ppel l antbefor e the det ect i ves att empt ed t o i nt ervi ew hi m . T he magi s tr at e t es t i fi ed that s he and the det ect i ves ent er ed A ppel l ant ’ s hos pi t al r oom and i ntr oduced themsel ves . ShePecina–Pag e 3

w e n t o v e r t o A p p e lla n t’ s b e d s id e a n d p o in te d to th e d e te c tiv e s a n d s a id , “ T h e ya re h e re . T h eyw an t t o sp ea k to y o u . ” S h e stated , “[ H ]e n o d d ed h is he ad o r said ‘y es.’ I ca n ’t r emem ber , butther e w as an ac know l edgment . ” She then r ead hi m hi s r i ght s and as ked h im if h e w a n ted a c o u rt-a p p o in ted a tto rn e y . H e sa id th a t h e d id . T h e m a g istra te w ro te on the bott om of the w ai verof couns el form , “Percourtm ot i on, appoi ntdefe ndantan att orney . ” She as ked hi m i f he w ant ed t o s peak t o the det ect i ves , and he s ai d, “Y es . ” She s ai d thathe di d noti ndi cat e thathe w ant ed couns el pr es entbefor e he t al ked t o the d e te c tiv e s . B e f o re s p e a k in g w ith d e te c tiv e s , A p p e lla n t a ls o s ig n e d th e “ A d u lt W a rn in g F o rm ,” w hi ch s ay s thaty ou have the r i ghtt o couns el , the r i ghtt o r emai n s i l ent , y ou do nothave to sp e a k to th e p o lice , y o u a re n o t re q u ire d to m a k e a sta tem e n t, an d y o u h a v e th e rig h t to s t op anyi nt ervi ew orques t i oni ng atanyt i m e. O ne of the det ect i ves w r ot e i n Spani s h on the s ide o f th e w aive r of co u n sel fo rm A p p ell an t had alread ysign ed , “I a sk ed fo r a l aw y er , butI al s o w ant ed t o s peak w i th the A r l i ngt on pol i ce. ” The offi cer s r ead A ppel l antthe Mi r anda w arni ngs tw i ce, once be for e theys t art ed r ecor di ng the i nt ervi ew a n d a g a in a f

te r t u rn in g o n th e re c o rd in g d e v ic e . S e e Mir a n da v . A r iz o n a , 384 U . S. 436 (1 9 6 6 ). D ur i ng the i nt ervi ew w i th the pol i ce, A ppel l ants ai d thathe and hi s w i fe ha d ar gued. W hen as ked i f he ha d cuthi s w i fe, he s ai d, “y es . ” H e then s i gned a c onfes s i on w ri tte n b yo n e o f

th e d e te c tiv e s s ta tin g th a t h e h a d c u t h is w if e .Pecina–Pag e 4

A ppel l antfi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s both hi s or al and w r i t t en s t at ement s , cl ai m i ng th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re n o t v o lu n tar ilyg iv e n a n d w e re o b tain e d in v io latio n o f h is Four th, Fi fth, Si xth, and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s . A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, t he St at e as ked the magi s tr at e w hetherA ppel l antfr eel y , i nt el l i gent l y , know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ys poke t o t he pol i ce of fi cer s . She t es t i fi ed, “H e s ai d he s t i l l – I s ai d, I as ked th e m – h i m, ‘ d o y o u s t i l l wa n tt o t a l k t o th e m? ’ An d h e s a i d , ‘ Ye s . ’ He n e v e rs a i d t o me th a t h e w a n te d to ta lk to th e m .” T he tr i al courtdeni ed the mot i on t o s uppr es s and made fi ndi ngs of fa ctand concl us i ons of l aw i ncl udi ng thatA ppel l antw as ful l yi nform ed of hi s r i ght s and that A p p e llan t “in d ica ted th a t alth o u g h h e d id w a n t a la w y e r, th a t h e w ish e d to a lso talk w ith d e te c tiv e s f

ro m A rl in g to n , m e a n in g th a t h e b a s ic a lly w a s w a iv in g h is ri g h ts a t th a t tim e . .

. ” The t r i al courtfound thatA ppel l antal s o s i gned var i ous w ai ver s of couns el and w as notunderthe i nfl uence of drugs oral cohol w hen he ga ve a s t at ementthatw as r ecor ded and puti n w r i t i ng. B as ed on thes e fi ndi ngs , the tr i al courtrul ed thatthe s t at ementw as ta k e n v o lu n ta ri ly an d w a s a d m is s ib le . T h e ju ry f

o u n d A p p e lla n t g u ilty o f m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d h im to lif e in p ri s o n . A ppel l antappea l ed, r ai s i ng s ever al i s s ues , i ncl udi ng thathi s s t at ementt o pol i ce w as o b tain e d in v io latio n o f h is rig h t to c o u n se l. CO URT O F AP PEALS T he courtof appe al s addr es s ed A ppel l ant ’ s i s s ues r el at ed t o the r i ghtt o couns elPecina–Pag e 5

underthe Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentand hel d thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterri n fi ndi ng thatA ppel l antvol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ght s . T he courtr eas oned thatA ppel l antw ai ved h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n se l “e ith e r b yf a ili n g to in v o k e it, b e c a u se n o th in g in the t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ngs orattr i al cl ear l ys how ed thatA ppel l anti ndi cat ed t o J udge M addock orthe det ect i ves atthe t i m e of the i nt ervi ew thathe w ant ed t o s peak t o an att orneyaboutthe ques t i oni ng ort o have one pr es entdur i ng ques t i oni ng, orbeca us e he r ei ni t i at ed the cont actbyans w er i ng ‘ y es ’ w hen as ked bythe magi s tr at e i f he s t i l l w ant ed t o s peak w i th t he det ect i ves and byt el l i ng the det ect i ves thathe w ant ed t o s peak t o them. ” P eci na, 2 0 0 7 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 3 4 2 4 a t * 2 1 -2 2 . C o n sid e rin g th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A p p e llan t’s rig h t to c o u n se l h a d a ttac h e d w h e n h e w a s a rra ig n e d b yth e m a g istra te a n d re q u e ste d a c o u rta p p o in te d a tto rn e y . I

d. at*23- 24. T he courtdet erm i ned thatA ppel l anti nvoked hi s r i ght to co u n sel an d then reinit iat ed co n tact w ith the d etec ti v es w h en h e sa id, “I ask ed fo r a law y e r, b u t als o I w a n ted to sp e a k w ith th e A rlin g to n p o lice .” H e a lso w a iv e d h is rig h t to cou nsel w hen he w as advis ed o f his Mi r anda r i ght s bythe det ect i ves pr i ort o the in te rv ie w . Id . a t * 2 5 -2 7 , c iti n gC ro ss v . S ta te , 1 4 4 S . W . 3 d 5 2 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( s t at i ng thata s us pecthas w ai ved hi s pr evi ous l yi nvoked r i ghtt o couns el i f the s us pect hi m s el f r ei ni t i at ed the comm uni cat i on w i th the pol i ce a nd ther eaf t erexpr es s l yw ai ved the r i ghtt o couns el ) . T he courtof appe al s defe rr ed t o the tr i al court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand r ej ect ed A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent s thathi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed.Pecina–Pag e 6

A ppel l antfi l ed a pe t i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew as ki ng us t o cons i derthe f o l l o wi n g two g r o u n d s f o rr e v i e w: W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t w h o h a d b e e n g iv e n M ira n d a rig h ts b ya m a g istra te si m ult aneo usl yrequest s a l aw y er and request s t o speak t o the poli ce, m ust an att orneybe pr ovi ded bef or e the pol i ce c an begi n thei ri nt err ogat i on? W h e n th e p o lice e n ter a h o sp ital ro o m to tak e a sta tem e n t f ro m d e f e n d a n t in cus t odyaft erthe pol i ce ha ve bee n i nform ed thatthe ac cus ed has r eques t ed an att orneyand s i m ul t aneous l yi ndi cat ed a w i l l i ngnes s t o s peak t o the p o lice , h a s th e a c c u se d ‘re in iti a ted ’ c o n tac t w ith th e p o lice a n d v o lu n tar ily w ai ved his fi ft h an d si xth am end m ent r i gh t s t o co un sel and ri gh t s agai nst s el f i ncr i m i nat i on? CAS EL AW I n E dw ar ds v. A r iz ona , 4 5 1 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 8 0 ), t h e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t, [W ] hen an a ccus ed has i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o have c ouns el pr es entdur i ng cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on, a val i d w ai verof thatr i ghtcannotbe es t abl i s hed by s how i ng onl ythathe r es ponded t o fur therpol i ce- i ni t i at ed cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on even i f he ha s been a dvi s ed of hi s r i ght s . W e furtherhol d that an ac cus ed, s uch as E dw ar ds , havi ng expr es s ed hi s des i r e t o deal w i th the pol i ce onl ythr ough couns el , i s nots ubj ectt o fur theri nt err ogat i on bythe author i t i es unt i l couns el has been made ava i l abl e t o hi m , unl es s the ac cus ed h im se lf in iti a tes f

u rth e r c o m m u n ica tio n , ex c h a n g e s, o r c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith th e p o lic e . Id . a t 4 8 4 -8 5 . T he C our tthen ext ended E dw ar ds t o the Si xth A m endmenti n Mi chi gan v. Jack s on , 4 7 5 U . S . 6 2 5 (19 8 5 ). A s in the ca se b ef o re u s, in the tw o ca ses th at w ere cons ol i dat ed and di s cus s ed i n Jack s on , the appe l l ant s r eques t ed appoi nt m entof couns el at the arr ai gnm ent . A nd, i n eac h cas e, the i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s w er e pr es entatthe arr ai gnm entand ques t i oned the ac cus ed af t ercouns el w as r eques t ed, butbefor e thePecina–Pag e 7

app el l ants had spok en w i th co un sel . E ach ap pell ant w as advis ed o f his Mi r anda rig h ts p ri o r t o q u esti o n ing an d ag ree d to p roc ee d w ith the in terview w ith o u t cou n sel. T h e C o u rt concl uded thatw hen a de fenda ntr eques t ed couns el atan arr ai gnm entpr ocee di ng, the po l i ce cou l d n ot then i nit i at e con t actw i th the defen dan tand requesta w ai ver of those ri g h ts f o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

in te rr o g a tio n . Id . at636. W e cons i der ed E dw ar ds in C ro ss v . S ta te and hel d thati f an a ppel l anthas i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el butthen i ni t i at es cont actw i th the pol i ce a nd expr es s l yw ai ves the r i ghtt o couns el , then the E dw ar ds rul e i s s at i s fi ed and “ the s us pecthas count erm anded hi s or i gi nal el ect i on t o s peak t o author i t i es onl yw i th the as s i s t ance of couns el . ” 144 S. W . 3d at527 ( ci t i ng O r egon v. B r ads haw , 4 6 2 U .S . 1 0 9 3 (1 9 8 3 )) . A N A L Y S IS D es pi t e the fa ctthatthe gr ounds forr evi ew char act er i ze the r eques t s fora l aw y er and t o s peak t o the pol i ce a s s i m ul t aneous , as not ed above , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe m a g is tr a te re a d A p p e lla n t h is ri g h ts a n d a s k e d if h e w a n te d a c o u rt -a p p o in te d a tto rn e y . W h e n h e s a id th a t h e d id , s h e f ille d o u t th e p a p e rw o rk to b e g in th e a p p o in tm e n t p ro c e s s . S h e th e n a sk e d A p p e llan t if h e w a n ted to sp e a k to th e d e tec tiv e s, w h o w e re w a iti n g in h is h o s p i t a l r o o m. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t A p p e llan t f a iled to in v o k e h is F if

th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to couns el dur i ng i nt err ogat i on; thathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e nottr i gger ed byt he r eadi ng of the s t atut oryw arni ngs ; and, even i f A ppel l anti nvoked hi s Si xth A m endmentPecina–Pag e 8

ri g h ts , h e w a iv e d th e m . B eca us e A ppel l antdi d notunambi guous l yr eques tthatan att orneybe pr ovi ded for the i nt err ogat i on, the St at e as s ert s thatthe r eques tforappoi nt m entof couns el w as i n t he eventof a f

utur e tr i al , and notforthe purpos e of a s s i s t i ng hi m dur i ng ques t i oni ng byt he det ect i ves w ho w er e w ai t i ng t o s peak t o hi m . T he Supr eme C our taddr es s ed and r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n Mi chi

gan v. Jack

s on , s t at i ng that“W e thus r ej ectthe St at e’ s s ugges t i on th a t re sp o n d e n ts’ re q u e sts f o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l sh o u ld b e c o n stru e d to a p p ly o n lyto re p re se n tatio n in f o rm a l leg a l p ro c e e d in g s.” 4 7 5 U .S . at 6 3 3 . T h is a lso d ire c tly addr es s es the St at e’ s s econd a r gum ent , thatadver s e j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ar e noti ni t i at ed byan arr es torbythe magi s tr at e r eadi ng A ppel l anthi s r i ght s underT exas C ode of C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re A rt ic le 1 5 .1 7 . S e e id
. a t 6 3 6 (o n c e th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t atta c h e d in deal i ngs w i th m agi s tr at e, pol i ce c oul d t al k t o a def endantonl yi f he hi m s el f i ni t i at ed the c o n tac t.) R e c e n tly , the S u p re m e C o u rt sp e c if ica llyc o n sid e re d S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts in relati o n to T ex as C o d e o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re A rt icl e 1 5 . 1 7 an d h eld th at a d ef en d an t’ s i ni t i al appea r ance befor e a magi s tr at e j udge, w her e he l earns the cha r ge aga i ns thi m and hi s l i bertyi s s ubj ectt o r es tr i ct i on, m arks the i ni t i at i on of adve r s aryj udi ci al pr ocee di ngs th a t tr ig g e r a tta c h m e n t o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l. R o th g e ry v . G ill e sp ie C o u n ty , 1 2 8 S .C t. 25 7 8 , 2 5 9 2 (2 0 0 8 ). B e c a u se A p p e llan t in th is c a se h a d in v o k e d h is rig h ts to c o u n se l w h e n a rra ig n e d b yth e m a g istra te a t th e h o sp ital, th e re m a in in g iss u e is w h e th e r A p p e llan t in iti a ted th e c o n tac t w ith th e p o lice a n d th e n v a lid lyw a iv e d h isPecina–Pag e 9

We acknowle dg e that it was the mag istrate, not the dete ctives who actually initiated the 1 contac t between Appellant and thepolice. However, a s the Supreme Court noted in Jack son , “Six th Amendment principles requirethat we impute the State’ s knowledg e from one state actor to another.” Jack

son , 475 U.S. at 634. p re v io u s ly in v o k e d ri g h ts . See C ross, 1 4 4 S .W . 3 d a t 5 2 8 . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatA ppel l antdi d nothi m s el f i ni t i at e cont actw i th the det ect i ves . T he det ect i ves came t o the hos pi t al w i th a w arr antforA ppel l ant ’ s arr es tand b ro u g h t a m a g istra te w ith th e m f o r th e p u rp o se o f

a rra ig n in g A p p e llan t. T h e m a g istra te in f o rm e d A p p e lla n t o f

h is ri g h ts a n d b e g a n th e p ro c e s s o f a p p o in tin g a n a tto rn e yf o r h im . O nl yaft ers he as ked hi m i f he w ant ed t o s peak t o det ect i ves di d he r epl y , “Y es . ” I n no w a yd o e s th is in d ica te th a t A p p e llan t h im se lf in iti a ted c o n tac t o r o p e n e d th e d ialo g w ith the author i t i es . T he magi s tr at e t es t i fi ed thatA ppel l antagr eed t o s peak w i th the det ect i ves o n lya f ter sh e a sk e d h im if

h e w a n ted to , sta tin g , “H e n e v e r sa id to m e th a t h e w a n ted to ta lk to th e m .” T h e re f

o re , th e re w a s n o in itia tio n o f c o n ta c t w ith th e p o lic e b yA p p e lla n t. J us tas i n E dw ar ds , the St at e s how ed onl ythatA ppel l antr es ponded t o fur therpol i cei ni t i at ed ques t i oni ng. 1 A s the Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n Jack s on , “W e th u s h o ld th a t, i f p o lice in iti a te in ter ro g a tio n a f

ter a d e f e n d a n t’s a ss e rtio n , at a n a rra ig n m e n t o r sim ilar p ro c e e d in g , o f h is r i ghtt o couns el , anyw ai verof the def endant ’ s r i ghtt o couns el forthatpol i ce- i ni t i at ed i nt err ogat i on i s i nval i d. ” Jack s on , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 6 3 6 . CO NC L US I ON W hi l e w e agr ee w i th t he courtof appe al s thatA ppel l ant ’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtPecina–Pag e 10

t o couns el att ache d w hen he w as arr ai gned bythe magi s tr at e, w e di s agr ee thatA ppel l ant hi m s el f i ni t i at ed cont actw i th the pol i ce. Say i ng “y es ” w hen as ked bythe magi s tr at e i f he w a n ted a c o u rt a p p o in ted a tto rn e yis e n o u g h to in v o k e th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to couns el ; how ever , ans w er i ng “y es ” w hen as ked i f he w ant ed t o s peak t o det ect i ves does n o t in d ica te th a t A p p e llan t i ni t i at ed the cont actas r equi r ed underthe E dw ar ds br i ght - l i ne rul e. T he courtof appe al s err ed i n hol di ng thatA ppel l anti ni t i at ed cont actw i th the pol i ce and w ai ved hi s pr evi ous l yi nvoked r i ght s t o couns el . T he j udgm entof the courtof app eal s i s r eversed and the case is rem and ed fo r a har m analy si s.

M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: O ct ober29, 2008 P ub l i sh