## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P –74, 980 BA R N EY R O N A LD FU LL ER , JR. , A ppe l l ant v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS O N D I R E C T A P P E A L F R O M C A U SE N O . 04- C R - 27 I N T HE 3 4 9 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT

th HO UST ON CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , fil e d a c onc ur r ingopi nio n.

CO NC URRI NG

OP IN ION I di s agr ee w i th t he maj or i ty ’ s anal y s i s r egar di ng the admi s s i bi l i tyand v o lu n tar in e ss o f

A p p e llan t’s v id e o tap e d sta tem e n t. B e c a u se A p p e llan t p lea d e d g u iltyin fr ontof the j uryand the tr i al pr ocee ded t o the puni s hm entphas e, ther e i s no need f ort he courtt o anal y ze the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s s t at ementt o pol i ce on the morni ng of the sh o o tin g s. H e c laim s th a t h e d id n o t v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e h is rig h t to re m a in sile n t an d h is r i ghtt o couns el beca us e he w as drunk w hen the s t at ementw as t aken a nd beca us e he w asFuller –Pag e 2

E ven at t he p ret ri al heari ng on t he m o t i o n t o s up p res s t he vi d eo t ap ed s t at em ent , A p p el l ant did no t co nt estt he 1 t he veraci t y of t he f

act s he rel at ed in hi s co nf ess i o n, justhis a b i l i t y to kno wi ngl y w ai ve hi s ri ght s t o remain s i l ent and to ha v e a n a tto rn e y p re se n t.

W e no t e t ha t the tri al c o urt’ s p erm i ssi o n to ap p ea l d o es no t ap p l y i n d i rec t ap p ea l s such as the ca se b efo re u s. 2 n o t aw a re th a t h is b ro th e r-in -la w , an a tto rn e y , h a d se n t a f a x d ire c tin g o f

f ice rs n o t to i nt ervi ew hi m . H ow ever , bypl eadi ng gui l ty , he w ai ved the r i ghtt o chal l enge on appeal 1 the admi s s i on of hi s i ni t i al confe s s i on. H i s non- negot i at ed gui l typl ea w as the equi val ent t o hi m confe s s i ng t o t he j ury . W hi l e w e ar e al w ay s conce rned w i th the vol unt ar i nes s and a c c u ra c yo f

a c o n f e ss io n , b yp lea d in g g u ilty , A p p e llan t co n f irm e d th e a c c u ra c yo f

h is confe s s i on and the i s s ue of vol unt ar i nes s beca m e moot . A s s uch, he ca nnotnow compl ai n thathi s confe s s i on t o t he pol i ce w as admi t t ed forthe j uryt o cons i derdur i ng t he puni s hm entphas e. T h e situ a tio n w o u ld b e d if f e re n t if th e re w e re a p lea b a rg a in a g re e m e n t. If h is gui l typl ea w as a r es ul tof a ne got i at i on betw een A ppel l antand the St at e, then i tw oul d be a p p ro p ria te f

o r u s to c o n sid e r th e v o lu n tar in e ss a n d a d m iss ib ili tyo f h is c o n f e ss io n to p o lic e . See C o d e o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re A rticle 2 6 .1 3 (a )(3 ), sta tin g th a t in a p lea b a rg a in cas e, i f the puni s hm entas s es s ed bythe courtdoes notexce ed the puni s hm entagr eed upon b yth e S tate a n d th e d e f e n d a n t, th e d e f

e n d a n t m u st g e t th e trial c o u rt’s p e rm iss io n to appea l anym att er s exce ptthos e r ai s ed bypr etr i al m ot i ons . T her efor e, i f thi s w er e a negot i at ed gui l typl ea, A ppel l antcoul d appea l the vol unt ar i nes s i s s ue as r ai s ed i n the pr etr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s the vi deot ape. Si nce thi s i s notthe ca s e her e, I thi nk the 2 m aj or i tys houl d s i m pl ys aythat , due t o A ppel l ant ’ s admi s s i on of gui l tbefor e the j ury , heFuller –Pag e 3 w a iv e d th e ri g h t to c o m p la in o n a p p e a l th a t h is c o n f e s s io n to p o lic e w a s a d m itte d . I concuri n the dec i s i on t o overrul e poi nt s of err ort en and e l even a nd otherw i s e j oi n the o p i n i o n o f

th e m a j o r i ty.

M ey ers , J.

Fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2008 P ub l i sh