Opinion filed Februar y 2 6, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 77 -CR

____ ____ __ DA RRELL A LLEN LEM AS TER , A ppellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 91st Distr ict Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR -03-20,195

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Da rr e ll A lle n L e Ma ste r wa s ind ic te d fo r the se c on d de g re e fe lony of fe ns e of ind e c e nc y

wi th a child. Af

ter the tria l court denie d his moti on to suppres s , ap p el l ant pl eade d g uilty , without the benef it of a plea

barg ain ag ree ment, to the offe nse. The trial c ourt convicte d appellant a nd assessed his punishmen t at co nfinement for eig ht y ear s. I n a sing le issue, appe llant contends that the trial

c ourt e rr e d b y de nyinghis mot ion

to s up pr e ss. We a ff

ir m. On Oc tob e r 1 5, 20 03 , Te xas Rang e r D a vid Hu llum to ok

a wr itt e n s tate me nt f

ro m a pp e lla nt. Appellant sig ned the state ment. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the statement. At the hea ring on the motion, Range r Hullum testified that he advised appellant of his c onstitut ional rig hts before appellant g ave the statement and that appellant wa ived those rig hts. The pre liminary para g raphs of the statement provided that “[it was] being g iven voluntarily , without fear of dure ss or threat, and2

wi tho ut p ro mis e of

le nie nc y ” ; th a t app e lla

nt ha d b e e n a dv ise d o f h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts ; and that, p ri o r t o and duringthe making of the stateme nt, appellant had know ingly , intelligently , and voluntarily

waived those rig hts. Appellant place d his init ials beside ea ch of the listed constitutional ri g hts and his wa ive r o f t

ho se ri g hts

. Ap p ellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing his motion to suppress the statement beca use it was coe rce d and involuntarily g iven. Specific ally , appell an t claims that he g ave the statement bec ause Range r Hull um threatened to reque st a bond in the amount of $250,000 so t hat appellant would r emain in jail until the matter was c oncluded. To be a dmissib l e, a statement must be fre ely and voluntarily

made without compulsion or persua sion. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 38.21 (V ernon 2005) . Fa ctual dete rminations made by the tr ia l c ourt

a t a he ari ngon

a mot ion to s up pr e ss e vid e nc e sh a ll n ot b e dis tur be d o n a pp e a l if those finding s are supported by the re cord. J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 803 S.W .2d 272, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 90 ); Ho ok

s v . S tate , 73 S.W .3d 398, 401 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2002, no pet.). At a hear ing on a motion to suppress evidenc e, the tria l court is the sole ju d ge o f t h e weight a nd cre dibilit y

of the evidenc e; the trial c ourt’s finding may not be dis turbed on appea l absent a clea r abuse of discre tion. Al v arad o v . S tate , 8 53 S.W. 2d

17 , 2 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Hooks , 73 S.W .3d at 401. Appellant testified that “ Rang er H ullum tol d me that if I didn’t g ive hi m a st atement of what he wa nted to hear , he was g oing to r equest a $250,000 bond put on me, and I wouldn’t eve r g et out of ja il unti l th is w a s o ve r w ith .” Rang e r H ull um te sti fi e d that he did no t mak e su c h a state me nt t o ap p e l l a n t

. H e a l s o t es t i fi edt h at h e d i d n o tco er ce , t h re at en , o r e n t i ce ap p el l an ti n t o gi v i n g a statement. Rang er H ullum said that he may have discussed the subject of a bond with a ppellant af

ter the state me nt w a s ta

ke n. Th e tr ia l c ourt wa s e nti tle d to be lie ve Rang e r H ull um’ s te sti mony and to disbelieve a

ppellant’s testimony

. Me e k v . S tate , 790 S.W .2d 618, 620 (Tex

. C rim. App. 1990); Hooks , 73 S.W .3d at 401. Ther efor e, the tria l court did not err in concludingthat appellant’ s statement wa s fre ely

and voluntarily

made. We over

rule a ppellant’s issue. We affir m the judgme nt of the trial cour t.

F e b r u ar y 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 T E R RY M c C A LL Do not publish. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7. 2( b)

. JUSTI CE Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.