See Tex . Pe nal C ode Ann. § 46.04 (V er non 2003). Appel lan t sti pul ated to hi s p ri or 1 felony co nv icti on of ev adi ng ar re st w it h a v ehi cl e. NO. 07-06 -026 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU LY30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JUAN SOT O, JR., APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 50, 888- B; H ON ORABLE JOH N BOAR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellantJuan Soto , Jr. appe als his conviction by jury o f p o s session of

a f irearm by a felo n and his resul ti ng se ntenc e of sev en y ears impr is onment. T hroug h his sol e poi nt

1 of error , app ell ant c ontends the tria l cour t er re d i n admi tti ng ev ide nce of a st atement he ma de a t th e j ai l a fte r

h i s a r res t. W e affi r m.N o us abl e l atentfing er pr int s were found on the g un. 2 Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.22 (V er non 200 5)
. 3 2 Appel lan t was one of se v eral pass eng ers in a v ehi cl e w hen a pol ic e off ic er i nit iat ed a traf f ic stop. Af

ter the stop, the driver w as arreste d on an out stan ding w arrant. Asked if the re w as an ything in the vehicle of w hich th e of

f icer shou ld be aw are, the driv er told him appel lan t had a g un. Off ic ers found a .45 cal ibe r pis tol under the v ehi cl e’s frontpas seng er seat , and found the pis tol ’s mag az ine behi nd the dr iv er ’s seat
. Appel lan t w as ar re ste d and transpo rt ed to j ail
. Dur ing the book ing proces s, w hen app ell ant remov ed hi s s hoes and soc ks , a .45 cal ibe r ro und fell out of hi s ri g ht s ock
. After the round fell , app ell ant s aid to the boo king of

f icer that h e w as going to buy the pistol so tha t is w hy he was lookin g at it and w hy hi s fin g er pr int s woul d be on i t. 2 Ana ly sis On ap peal , app ell ant c hal len g es the admis si on of the st atement he made dur ing the booki ng proces s. At tr ial , app ell ant o bje cte d to the admis si on of the sta tement, co ntendi ng itw as the resul t of c u st o d ial i nter ro g ati on. After hol din g a he ar ing to deter mine it s adm issibility , the trial court adm itted the sta tem entas v olun tary and as re s g est ae of the ar re st or offense pursuantto arti cl e 38. 22, S ect ion 5 of the Cod e of

Cri minal Procedu re . 3 W e revi ew the trial cou rt’s de term inatio ns regarding ad missibility of ev iden ce for an ab use of dis creti on. Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 372 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1990 ) (op. on reh’g).T he Sta te also asserts th e stat em entw as ad missible as re s g est aeof app ellant ’s 4 ar re st. W e do not a ddress thatco ntent ion
. 3 On ap pea l, app ellantagain advances th e argume n tt h at th e trial court erred in ov er ru li ng hi s o bje cti on bec ause the s tatem ent was made w hil e he w as ar re ste d, han dcuf fed, and in the cust ody of t h e p o li c e d uring w hich tim e the y q uest ione d him . He cont ends arti cl e 38. 22 bar re d admi ss ion of the sta tement. In s uppor ti ng thi s a rg ument, he as ser ts iti s e sta bli shed t he prosec uti on may not use sta tements st emming from cus todi al int er ro g ati on of a defendant
. Ar ti cl e 38. 22 pro vides thatan o ra l sta tement made as a resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on maynot be us ed ag ain st an ac cus ed unl ess an e lectroni c recordin g i s made , h e h a s re c e ive d a wa rn in g e xp la in in g h is le ga l r ig h t s , a n d h e h a s kn o win gl y, in t e ll ig e n t ly, and v olu ntar il y

w aiv ed th e r ig hts des cr ibe d i n the w ar nin g . Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. art. 3 8
. 2 2 , § 3 ( Ver non 2005). T h e a rt i c l e d o e s n o tp re c l u d e t h e a d mi s s i o n , h o w e v e r , o f a state me nt th at is re s g est ae of the ar re st or

the off ense, a s tatementthatdoes not ste m from cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on, o r a v olu ntar y st atement w hether

or not the re sul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on. Id. § 5. The Stat e ac know led g es appel lan t was in cus tody w hen he made th e s tatement , but cont ends, inter alia , t he tr ial co urt proper ly co uld h a ve found itw as not t he resul t of int er ro g ati on. W e ag re e.

4 As noted, the sta tement at i ss ue was made w hil e appel lan t was bei ng book ed i nto jail. T estim ony showed tha t jail policy requires tha t individuals be searc h e d b e foreSee Rhode Island v. Innis, 4 4 6 U .S. 291, 302, 100 S. Ct . 168 2, 64 L.E d.2d 5 297( 1980) ; Mo rr

is v. Sta te, 897 S.W .2d 528 , 531 (Tex.App .–E l Paso 19 95, no pe t.). 4 pla cementin the general ja il populati on to ens ure no w eapons or narcot ic s a re broug ht i nto the j ail
. It w as dur ing thi s search that appel lan t re mov ed his sh oes and s ock s, all ow ing the bul letto fall from his soc k. The onl y tes ti mony conc er nin g st atements made t o appel lan t during this process involv ed a routin e hea lth-relate d inquiries. App ellant app ears to take the p osi ti on th at al l off ic ial q uest ion ing at the j ail sh oul d be re g arded as cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on. As a g eneral ru le, our co urts hav e notdone so, and we will not treat t he chal len g ed sta tement as a respon se to c ust odi al int er ro g ati on merely bec ause itoc cur re d dur ing the jai l booki ng procedu re dur ing w hic h appel lan t was ask ed s ome routi ne q uest ion s. See Cro ss

v. Sta te, 144 S. W .3d 5 21, 5 25 n. 5 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) ; Edwar ds v. State, 813 S.W .2d 5 72, 5 78 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1991, pet. re f’d) ( both noti ng that ro uti ne q uest ion s a sk ed dur ing book ing do n ot c onst it ute c ust odi al int er ro g ati on)
. T he b ookin g of

f icer tes t if ie d t h at w hen the bu llet fell out of app ellant ’s sock, app ellantand the of

f icer looked at each o the r. T here is no evidence th at th e of f icer said anythi ng . I nter ro g ati on i ncl udes noto n ly ex press q uest ion ing but als o the words and act ion s o f poli ce off ic ers t hat t hey sh oul d k now

are reason abl y

l ik e ly t o el ic itan inc ri minat ing respon se from a s uspect. Bu t of f ic ers a re not hel d ac count abl e for the 5 unfores eeabl e resul t of thei r w ords or acti ons. Innis, 446 U. S. a t 302 ; Cam ar il lo v. State, 82 S. W .3d 5 29, 5 34- 35 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, no p et.)
. To cons ti tute int er ro g ati on, t he condu ct u n d e rt aken by the suppo sed int er ro g ator mustreflectso me measure of compul si on dis ti nct from any compul si v e effecti nherent i n bei ng pl aced in cus tody
. Sm it h5

v. State, 60 S .W .3d 8 85, 8 89 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2001, no pet .) , citi ng Gr if fith v . St ate , 55 S.W .3d 5 98, 6 03 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)
. If no s uch compul si on, d irector i ndi re ct, oc cur re d, the utterance did not ar is e from i nter ro g ati on. Sm it h , 60 S.W .3d at 889. W e percei v e no compul si on i n the ex chang e of lo oks between app ell ant a nd th e off ic er , nor does itappear the o ff ic er

co uld hav e predi cte d tha t hi s l ook at ap pel lan t woul d el ic itan i ncr iminati ng re spons e. See Sm it

h, 60 S .W .3d a t 889 ( for a comment to be the re sul t of cu sto dia l interrogation , the w ords or action s utiliz ed by the police m ust no t only be of the ilk w hich the of f icer should know are re a sona bly likely to elicit an incrimina ting response but also hav e s ome compuls iv e ef fect) . The t ri al cour

t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by co ncl udi ng the sta tement w as not t he resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on. Appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue on appeal i s o v er ru led
. W e aff ir m appel lan t’ s conv icti on and sent ence. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.