### NUM BER 13-06- 696- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
HEC TOR

A VILA , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Hector

Av il a, ap peal s h is murder co nv icti on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Av il a w as a j uv eni le w hen he w as ind icted, but h e w as tr ied as an a dult. On app eal, h e argues tha t the trial court erred by den y ing his motion to supp ress his co nfessi on. Beca use Av il a w aiv e d h is compl ain ts re g ardin g the admis si on of theAf t er r ev i ewi ng t he br i ef s of t he par t i es and t he appel l at e r ecor d, we concl ude al l di sposi t i v e i ssues 1 ar e cl ear l y set t l ed i n l aw. T her ef or e, w e i ssue t hi s m em or andum opi ni on pur suant t o r ul e 47. 1 of t he T exas R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 . T h e fa c tu a l n a tu re o f th i s c a s e , a s w e l l a s i ts p ro c e d u ra l h i s to ry, a re k n o w n to th e p a rti e s ; t h e re fo re , w e d o n o t re c o u n t t h e s e m a tte rs i n d e ta i l

. 2 c on fes s i on , w e affi r m. 1 I. Background On M ar ch 31, 2 006, a c onfronta ti on oc cur re d o u ts id e a Tins elt ow n mov ie theat er in Cor pus Chr is ti

. John “B o” F er nandezw as shotand kil le d d ur ing the inc ide nt. Av il a, alo ng w it h s ev eral others, w as apprehended in a f iel d behind Tins elt ow n and w as ar re ste d. At the time of his arrest , Av il a w as 16 y ears old and in the sev enth g ra de. Av il a w as tak en to t he Cor pus Chr is ti Pol ic e Dep artment, w here he s ubseq uentl y g av e a s tatementto the p o li c e co n fe s s in g t h a th e sh o ta gu n a tFe rn a n d e z. On J uly 27, 2006, Av il a was i n dicted for the murde r of Fer nandez

. The Stat e peti ti oned for

a transfer

of Av il a’s cri minal case to a Nuec es Cou nty D is tr ict C our

t s o tha t he co uld be tried as an a dult p ursua nt to section s 53.0 4 an d 54 .02 of the T exas Family Cod e. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 5 3.0 4, 54 .02 (Vernon 200 2). Th e juvenile court grant ed th e pe tition, and Av ila’s cri min al case w as transf erred to the 11 7th Distri ct Court
o f Nu e c e s Co u n t y. Av il a mov ed to suppress his confess ion

. The moti on all eg ed that t he s tatementw as inv olu ntar

y and coerced and that the proc edures follow ed to obtain the stat ement v iol ated (1 ) the Fi fth, Si xth, and F our teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on; ( 2) an unspe ci fied prov is ion of the Tex as Con sti tuti on; ( 3) se cti on 30. 22 of the Tex as Co de of Criminal Proce dure , w hich do es no t exi st, an d (4) section 5 1.0 95 o f t h e T exas Family Cod e. See U .S. C ON ST
. amends. V, VI, X IV; T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 5 1 .0 95 ( Ver nonT h e m o ti o n a l l e g e d th a t s e c ti o n 5 1 .0 9 (b )( 2 ) o f th e T e x a s F a m i l y C o d e w a s u n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l o n i ts 2 f ace b ecause i t al l owed a conf essi on t o be obt ai ned f r om a j uv eni l e an d t o be adm i t t ed i n a pr oceedi ng a gai nst t he j uve ni l e w i t ho ut fi rst gi vi ng t he j uve ni l e t he w arn i ng s l i s t ed i n s ec t i on 51

. 09 (b)(1), w hi c h h e a l l eg ed w ere r equi r ed b y t he Fi f t h, Si xt h, and Four t eent h Am endm ent s to the U ni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on a nd t he C onst i t ut i on o ft he S t ate ofT exas. Av i l a di d no t ci t e a speci f i c pr ov i si on o ft he Const i t ut i on o ft he St at e of T exas. Sect i on 51. 09 no l ongeri ncl udes f or m er subse ct i on ( b) , whi ch was m ov ed t o sect i on 5 1. 095 i n 19 97. Act ofM ay 26, 1997, 75t h Leg. , R

. S. , ch. 108 6, § 4, 199 7 T EX
. S ESS
. L AW S E RV
. 417 9, 418 1. W e pr esum e t hat Av i l a’ s coun sel i nt ended t o ci t e t o sect i on 51. 095 oft he T exas F am i l y C ode, w hi ch speci f i cal l y add r esses th e a d m i s s i b i l i ty o f a c h i l d ’ s s ta te m e n t. See T EX
. F A M I L Y C OD E A NN
. § 51

. 095 ( Ver non Supp. 200 7 & Pam ph. 20 08 ). 3 200 2). 2 T he trial cou rt held a he aring on the mot ion to s u p p re s s . At the h earing, Avi la’s
coun sel question ed Avila and th e of f ice rs wh o ap preh end ed h im an d w ho to ok his sta tement on th e ni g ht of the murder

. Av il a’s co unsel arg ued that the of ficers did not fol low the p ro cedures mandated by secti on 51.095 of t he family code. O n Sept ember 28, 2006, the t ri al cour

t den ied the moti on to su ppress . Avi la w as tried alo ng w ith a co-de fend ant , Daniel Garza. During tri a l, Garz a’s
couns el re q uest ed th at Av il a’s st atement be re dact ed to ex cl ude referenc es to G arz a. The parti es ag re ed upon se v eral sent ences thatw ere req uired to be redact ed. At t hat t ime, outs ide the presenc e of the jur y , Av il a’s co unsel reurg ed hi s mot ion to suppress . The tr ial
cour t ag ain deni ed th e req uest

. Off ic er H ug o St imml er , a detecti v e w it h the C or pus Ch ris ti Pol ic e D epar tment, testif ied th at he w as called to the thea ter on th e night of the m urde r. H e test if ied th at Avila
w as ar re ste d at Tins elt ow n and that, thereafter, he t ook a s tatementf ro m A vila at the Cor pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment. Dur ing Stimmle r’ s test imony , t he St ate o ffered Ex hib it56, w hic h w as the redact ed
v ersi on of Av il a’s st atement about the e v ents at Tins elt ow n. It sta ted:

On 3/31/ 06, at around 9:3 0 pm [sic], I w as at the T insle t o wn [ s ic] Mov ies on Gree nwood. I w as w ith my g irlfriend

. . . and a f riend . . . . W hile I w as there, J ess e Sol izst arted g iv ing me a hard ti me. H e s aid I had bee n4

tal ki ng dow n on his hood. J ess ie’ s c ousi n Bo came u p and sta rt ed s ay ing he wa s R .U

. Bo s l ap pe d me [, ] an d J es s e s ai d “ fuc k Y ou , do g , C .V .” [sic] Jessie ca m e up be hind Bo[,] and I saw he ha d an auto ma tic Pistol. Somebody

pas sed a rev olv er to me. Je ss ie sai d tha t he w as g oin g to ki ll me, an d s ta rte d po i nt i ng t he g un a t me . I a i me d my g un at him a nd c l os ed my ey es and s hot t hree ti mes. [R edact ed por ti on]. Jes se shotat us and t hen ev er y one [si c] sta rt ed r unni ng . [ Red act ed por ti on]. I took off ru nni ng to the b ack of the mov ies [,] and I t hrew the g un in the p ar ki ng l ot. I lai d dow n i n the fiel d behi nd th e mov ies

. I g ot up and sta rt ed w alk ing but w as pic ked up by the pol ic e. T he b otto m of

the do cum entconta ins han dwr iting by Magi strate Rudolfo T a m e z, w hich sta tes thatthe documentw as si g ned on th e f irs t day of Apr il , 200 6 at 4:42 a.m., w as
v olu ntar il y

si g ned i n M ag is trate Tamez ’s presenc e, and w as not si g ned i n the presenc e of a l aw enfor cementof

ficer or pros ecut ing attor ney . Av il a’s si g nature i s o n the doc ument. Av il a’s co unsel obj ect ed th at the statement“ v iol ates [Av il a’s ] c onst it uti onal r ig hts .” The t ri al
cour t ov er ru led the obj ect ion

. The S t a t e t h e n o ffe re d E x h i b i t 5 7 , w h i c h w a s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e s a me documentas Ex hib it56 e x ceptthatthe sta tement w as ty ped ont o a for m used for t aki ng st atements from juveniles. Again , A vil a ’s counse l objecte d “on th e ba sis of the violation of

[Avi la’s]
cons ti tuti onal r ig hts .” The t ri al cour t ov er ru led the obj ect ion

. Du rin g h is cross -e x aminat ion of Sti mmler , G arz a’s att or ney had Sti mmler

read a sta tement by

Gar z a i nto t he record that impl ic ated him in the s hooti ng . Therefore, du ri ng a b re a kin t h e t e s t im o n y o u t s id e t h e p re s e n c e o f t h e ju ry, t h e S t a t e a rg u e d t h a tG a rza
w aiv ed any obj ect ion to the re dact ed por ti ons of Av il a’s st atement impl ic ati ng Gar z a. The
cour t t hen adv is ed th e par

ti es that Av il a’s unredact ed s tatement s w oul d be admitted i nto
ev ide nce.5

The ju ry w as broug ht ba ck

i n the co urtroom. The Stat e offered Ex hib it s 5 9 and 60,
w h ic h w ere tw o unredact ed v ersi ons of Av il a’s st atement. Thes e ex hib it s c ontai ned t he
same c onfessi on but a ls o i ncl uded t he prev iou sl y -redact ed s tatement s i mpli cat ing Gar z a. After the Stat e offered th e ex hib it s, the fol low ing ex chang e oc cur re d: The Co urt: Any obj ect ion s? This is the nonredact ed [s ic ] sta tement of Hec tor

Av il a. Avil a ’s Co u n se l: I’ m rea d in g. Garza’s C oun sel: T hat ’s correct, Y our Hono r. T he Cou rt: All ri ght. No objectio ns? Av il a’s C ounse l: No. The ju ry found Av il a g uil ty , s entenc ed hi m to 4 0 y ears’ impri sonmentin the Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice– Institu tio n al Div ision, an d imp osed a $10 ,00 0 f ine. T his appeal ens ued. II. Discus sion By a s ing le is sue, Av il a arg ues that the tr ial co urt er re d i n admi tti ng hi s s tatement

. Av il a arg ues that the stat ement v iol ated the Tex as Fami ly Code becaus e ( 1) Av il a w as not t a k e n t o a lo c a t io n a u t h o ri ze d b y s e c t io n s 5 2

. 0 2 (a ) a n d 5 2

. 0 2 5 wit h o u tu n n e c e s s a ry d e la y; and ( 2) hi s p arents o r an offici al desi g nated by the juv eni le board w ere notnoti fied promptl y of t he act ion and re ason for his detent ion as req uired by se cti on 52. 02( b)

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 52. 02 ( Ver non S u p p . 2 0 07 & Pamph. 2008) , 52. 025 ( Ver non 200 2). Th e Sta t e a rg u e s t hatAv ila w aived his comp laints on app eal by af f irmatively represe nting to the trial court that he had no objectio n to th e ad mission of the sta tem ent s.T he S t ate al s o a rgu es t ha t A vi l a w ai ved hi s i s s ue be c au s e h i s co m pl ai nts o n a pp ea l do no t co m po rt 3 w i th th e a rg u m e n ts ra i s e d in h i s m o ti o n to s u p p re s s a n d a t t ria l

. D a rd e n v . S ta te , 629 S. W

. 2d 4 6, 51 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 2) ( hol di ng t hat j uv eni l e wai v ed o bj ect i on t o con f essi on underT exas F am i l y C ode sect i on 5 2. 02 b y f a ilin g to r a is e a r g u m e n t in m o tio n to s u p p r e s s ; t h u s , c o n te n tio n o n a p p e a l w a s d iff e r e n t th a n o b j e c tio n in tri a l c o u rt); s e e D a n g v . S ta te , 99 S. W

. 3d 172, 186 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 200 2) ( sam e un dersect i on 52

. 02 5), re v 'do n o th e r g ro u n d s , 1 5 4 S .W .3 d 6 1 6 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u s e w e fi n d th a t A v i l a a ff i rm a ti v e l y w a i v e d h i s o b je c ti o n s to th e s ta te m e n t. 6 W e ag re e. 3 T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure article 38 .23 (a) prov ides: No ev ide nce obtained by an o ff ic er

or othe r person in v iol ati on of any prov is ion s o f the C onst it uti on or l aw s o f the St ate o f

T e xas, or

of the Cons t it u t io n o r law s of the Unite d Sta tes of

Ame rica, shall be ad mitt ed in evidence against the accuse d on the trial of any cr imina l case. In an y case w here the l eg al ev ide nce ra is es an i ss u e h e re u n der , t he j ur y sh all be instructe d tha t if

it believes, or has a reason able dou bt, th at th e evidence w as ob taine d in v iolation of the pro v isions of

this Article, the n an d in such ev ent, the j ur

y sh all di sreg ard any

su ch ev ide nce so obtai ned. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 3 8 .2 3 ( Ve rn on 2005 ). A defendant w ho fil es a pre- tr ial moti on to su ppress ev ide nce and obtai ns a ru li ng on the admis si bil ity of the ev ide nce need not o bje ct ev er

y ti me the ev ide nce is off e re d a t tri al to preser v e er ro r. See Morague z v. State , 701 S. W .2d 9 02, 9 04 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986)

. “H ow ev er , whe n t h e defendant aff ir mati v ely

as ser ts dur ing tr ial he h as ‘no obj ect ion ’ to the admiss ion of the compl ain ed of ev ide nce, he w aiv es any er ro r in the a dmis si on of the e vide n ce despi te t he pre- tr ial
ru lin g. ” I d. ; see als o Holm es v. State , 248 S.W .3d 194, 200 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; Harris
v. State, 656 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 84 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1983) ; W il son v. State , 857 S.W .2d 9 0, 93 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 1993 , pet . ref 'd). In t his ca se, w hen Av il a’s unredact ed s tatement s were offered, Av il a’s co unsel aff ir mati v ely

st ated that he had n o object ion s. There i s n othi ng i n the record to ind ic ate that t h e t r i a l c o u rt u n d e rs t o o d t h a t Av i l a i n t e n d e d t o p re s e r v e h i s o bj e c t i o n s t o the admis si on of Av il a’s st atement. S e e , e . g . , S h e dde n v . S tate , No s. 13-07 -170 -CR,See I n re C

. O

. S. , 9 8 8 S .W .2 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 4
- 6 7 ( T e x . 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o ld in g p r o te c tio n s f o r ju v e n ile in f a m ily 4 c o d e s e c ti o n 5 4 .0 3 a re “w a i v a b l e o n l y ” ri g h ts th a t m a y b e w a i v e d e x p re s s l y ); C hi l ds v. St at e, 21 S. W

. 3d 6 31, 6 3 7 -3 9 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 ).
7 13- 07- 409- CR , 200 8 W L 39841 46, a t *12 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug. 29, 2008, no pet

. h.) (holdin g tha t def ense co unse l d id notwaiv e pre-trial mo tion to supp ress by af f irmatively sta ti ng “ no objec ti on” w here parti es eng ag ed in leng thy disc uss ion of

suppress ion i ss ues before t ri al, defense couns el cor re cte d er ro r immedi atel y after apparent w aiv er , and tr ial court to ld defense coun sel tha t error w as prese rv ed fo r a ppe al). Accordingly , Avi la expressly

w aived his comp laints on app eal, and there is not hing preserved for this Court 4 to rev iew

. Av il a’s i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III. Conclusi on Hav ing ov er ru led Av il a’s so le is sue on appe al, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment of conv icti on.

_________ _________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Nov ember , 200 8.