C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
L EE ERN EST F RER I CH S, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 68 -C R

Appea l from the 143rd District Court of War d Co un ty , T e xas (TC# 06-10-04796- CRW ) O P I N I O N L ee F rer ichs appe als his arson convic tion. He plead guilty to the crime a

nd was
se nte nc e d b y

a jur y to 6 0 ye ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. We a ff ir m. In Augus t 20 06 , App e lla

nt w a s li vin g wi th h is g ir lf ri e nd Ms. Summe r Wi lli ams a nd the ir y oungso n in

a mob ile ho me in M on aha ns , T e xas. In th e mid dle of the month, the c ou

ple g ot i n an ar g ument and Appe llant moved out of the home. On Aug ust 22, Ms. W illiams was fee ding her son in the e arly

hours of the morningwhen she hear d strang e cr acklingand poppingsounds coming from under

the house a

nd smelled smoke. Ms. Wil liams gr abbed he r son and r an to the other side of

the house whe re he r mother wa s sleeping . The two wome n g ot out of the house and saw fla mes comingfrom under

the house. Ms. Will iams’ mother, a former fire- fig hter, put the fi re out be fo re any

ma jor dama g e wa s d on e to t

he ho us e . Sh e su ff

e re d mi no r i nju

ri e s. On Se pte mbe r 2 0, 20 06 , T e xas R ang e r B ri an B urzy ns ki r e sp on de d to the War d Co un ty Sheriff’ s Offic e’s r equest for assistance with the arson investig ation. Rang er B urzy nski and War d Co un ty

She ri ff ’s De puty Mari o N un e z loc a te d App e lla nt a t hi s mo the r’ s h ou se in K e rm it, Texas. The two off

icer ’s interview ed Appe llant in his m other’s kitche n for a bout an hour be fore-2-

Appellant ac companied the office rs to the Winkler County Sheriff’ s Offic e whe re Rang er Burzy nski took Appellant’s statement. At the she riff’ s office , Rang er B urzy nski created a computer- g ener ated state ment based on the interview a nd Appellant’s a dmission t hat he se t fire to Ms. W illiams’ house. In the statement, Appe llant confe ssed to setting f ire to Ms. Wil liams’ house. Appe llant admitted he wa s ang ry

at Ms. Wil liams and wante d to scare her. H e used his pocke t lighter to set the insulation on the bottom of the mobile home on fire. He held the lig hter to the insulation, “until Iknew it was lit,” a nd then left throug h a bac k alley and drove awa

y in his car. At the e nd of the int e rv ie w, Ap pe lla

nt r e vie we d a

nd signe d h is s tate me nt. Th e of fi c e rs too k h im b a c k to his mother’s house. H e wa s arr ested five day s later. Appellant wa s indicted for a rson on Octobe r 5, 2006. On June 19, 2007, after Appellant
e nte re d a ple a of g uil ty to t he c ha rg e d o ff e ns e , th e jur

y se nte nc e d h im t o s ixty

y e ars ’ imp ri so nme nt. Th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d ju dg me nt i n a c c or da nc e wi th t he jur y ’s ve rd ic t. Appellant ra ises two issues on appea l. I n I ssue One, he argues the a ppeal must be a

bated to allow the trial cour

t to enter finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a s to the voluntariness of h i s s t at em en t . InI s s u e T wo , h e c o n t en d s th atth e t ri al co urt erre d b y ad m i t t i n g h i s fo ur- p age c o n f e s s i o ni n t o e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e i tw a s n o tg i v e nv o l un t ar i l y. In his first issue, Appellant ar g ues that the a ppeal should be a

bated until finding s of fa ct and conc lusions of law on the voluntariness of his statement as re quired unde r the Code of Criminal Procedure are filed. SeeT EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 38.22, § 6 (V ernon 2005)
. On Octobe r 30, 2008, we abate d the appe al and dire cted the tr ial court to ente r the re quired finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. The trial court f iled written finding s of fa ct and-3-

conclusions of lawreg ardingthe voluntariness of A ppellant’s conf

ession with this C ourt on De c e mbe r 1 1, 20 08 . T he re fo re , App e lla nt’ s f ir st i ssu e is m oo t. In I ssue Two, Appe llant challeng es the trial c ourt’s rulingthat his written confe ssion was
v o lu n ta r il y g iv e n , an d

th e r e a f te r , a dmi tt in g th e s tate me n t i n to e v id e n c e d ur in g p un is h me n t. We revie w the trial c ourt’s rulingreg ardingthe suppression of e vidence for a n abuse of

discretion. Gu zm an v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 88-9 (Te x .Crim.App. 1997). Under this standard, the
re vie wi ngc ourt

g ive s a lmo st t ota l de fe re nc e to t he tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f h ist or ic a l f a c ts su pp or te d b y the re c or d, e sp e c ia lly

wh e n th e fi nd ing s a

re ba se d o n a

n e va luatio n o f w itn e ss cre dibilit y

and deme anor. Guzman , 955 S.W .2d at 89. We revie w de novo mix ed questions of law and f act that do not turn on witness e valuation. Id. ; Ba le nti nev . S tate , 71 S.W .3d 763, 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). The trial c ourt’s rulingwill be upheld if it is reasona bly supported by

the
rec ord and is cor

rec t under a

ny theory if law a pplicable to the c ase. Sta tev . R os s , 32 S.W .3d 853, 855-56 (Te x .Crim.App. 2000). The voluntarine ss of a c onfession is deter mined by considering

the totality

of the circ umstances unde r which the statement wa s g iven. Cre age r v . S tate , 952 S.W .2d 852, 855 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997), citing Haynes v . W ashington , 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.C t. 1336, 10 L .Ed.2d 513 (1963). The ultimate question is whether the de fenda nt’s will was overbor

ne. Creager , 952 S.W .2d at 856, c iti ng

Ar ms tro ng v . S tate , 7 1 8 S . W . 2 d

6 8 6 , 6 9 3 ( T e x . C r i m . Ap p . 1 9 8 5 )
. In answe ringthis question, the court looks at the leng th of detention, incommunicado or prolong ed interrog ation, denying a cce ss to a family member, r efusingthe def endant’ s reque st to telephone a lawy er or family member, a

nd phy sical brutality
. Pa c e v . S tate , 986 S.W .2d 740, 747 (Tex.App.- -El Paso 1999, pet. re f’d)
.-4-

Howeve r, whe ther Appe llant’s statement wa s voluntary only become s an issue if the information was g iven as the r esult of a c ustodial interrog ation. Mo rri s v . S tate , 897 S.W .2d 52 8, 53 1 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 95 , n o p e t.) . I f A pp e lla nt’ s st a te me nt d id n ot s te m f ro m a custodial interrog ation, suppression is not require d. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 38.22, § 5 . T hu s, our f

ir st i nq uir y is whe the r A

pp e lla nt w a s in c us tod y a t th e tim e he g ave his state me nt. A per son is “in custody ” if, unde r the c ircumstance s, a re asonable person would be lieve his free dom of movement wa s restra ined to the deg ree associate d with formal ar rest. Dowthitt

v. Sta te , 931 S.W .2d 244, 254 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The re asonable person standa rd pre supposes an innocent

person. Id . Station house custody does not, in and of itself, c onstitut e custody
. Id
. at 255. When a per son is transported to a la w enf orce ment fac ility

by an off icer in the course of an investig ation on the invitation, request, or e ven the ur g ing of an off icer , and the
acc ompaniment is voluntary and conse nsual, the individual is not in custody as longas there
wer e no thre ats of for ce involved. Se e An de rso n v . S tate , 932 S.W .2d 502, 505 (Tex.Crim.App. 19 96 ); Brad

le yv . S tate , 960 S.W .2d 791, 801 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, pet. r ef’ d). Appellant asse rts that he wa s in custody beca use his fre edom of moveme nt was re strained at the time the stateme nt was take n in that he was c onfined to the Winkler County J ail in a locked room, and wa s not permitted to leave the premises. The trial court’ s findings of fac t and conclusions of lawindicate other wise. Ac cordingto the court’s f indings, Appe llant ag ree d to the investigating of

fice r’s re quest that he make a “voluntar y statement.” The office r used a statement form titled “Witness Affidavit” a nd beg an the inter

view inside Appe llant’s mother’s re sidence
. Duri ngthe int e rv ie w, Ap pe lla nt a g re e to a c c omp any

the of fi c e rs to t he Wink le r C ounty

Jail-5-

wher e his statement wa s completed. Appe llant was not place d in handcuf f at a ny time during the int e rv ie w. Ap pe lla

nt a g re e d to be int e rv ie we d b y the of fi c e r w ith out an atto rn e y

pr e se nt. Whil e at the jail, the off

icer told Appellant that he wa s not under ar rest and that he was f

ree to end the interview a

nd leave at any

time. The re cord indicates that Appellant himself a dmitted during the int e rv ie w that he un de rs too d h e wa s n ot u nd e r a rr e st. Th e re is n oth ingin t he re c or d to ind ic a te Ap pe lla nt w a s thre ate ne d o r p hy sic a lly a bu se d d ur ingthe int e rv ie w. He wa s ta ke n b a c k to his mother’s home by

the offic ers whe n the interviewwas finished. We cannot interf

ere with the trial court’ s resolution of fa ct issues. See G uzman , 955 S . W . 2 d at8 9 . Ba s edo nth e t ri al co urt ’s fi n d i n gs , an d o ur o wn re v i ew o f t h e s u p p re s s i o nh ea ri n g, we c onclude that Appe llant’s statement wa s g iven duringa non-c ustodial interview. Ac c or din g ly , w e ne e d n ot a dd re ss A pp e lla nt’ s a rgume nt t hat th e state me nt w a s n ot v olu nta ri ly g iven. Se e Mo rri

s , 897 S.W .2d at 531. The tria l court did not err in admitting Appellant’ s written statement into evidenc e duringpunishment. I ssue Two is over ruled. Ha vin g dis po se d o f b oth

Ap pe lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. Marc h 5, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C . J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J. Not Participating (Do Not Publish)