Opinion filed Jan uary29 , 2 010



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 01 79 -CR

____ ____ __ STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellant

V. RA YM OND CA STR ELLON , A ppellee

On App eal from 385th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR -35692

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Th e State a

pp e a ls fr om the tr ia l cou

rt ’s ru lin g on

Ray mon d Ca str e llo n’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss. Th e tr ia l c ourt su

pp re sse d Ca str e llo n’ s st a te me nts ma de to O ff ic e r F e rn and o Ca

rr a sc o. We a ff

ir m. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Castrellon wa s i n the Midland County Detention Center

servingtime for re vocation of pr ob a tio n. Ca st rellon

a pp lie d to se rv e his a sse sse d ja il c on fi ne me nt i n th e Mid land County Jail Work Rel e a s e Pr o g r a m. T h e p r o g r a m r e qu ir e d h im to p e r f o r m w o r k f o r th e c o u n ty under the
su pe rv isi on of the Com mun ity

Wor k Pr og ra m Su pe rv iso r a nd to b e pr e se nt f

or wo rk fr om 7 :30 a .m.W e note that C as tre llon’ s st at em ent s w er e not incul pat ory as he did not adm it to s m ok ing m ar ihua na or ha v ing m ar ihua

na 1 in hi s poss es si on. 2 to 1:30 p.m. C astrellon’s a pplication confirme d that he under stood that violating any terms or
c on dit ion s o f t

he pr og ra m c ou ld r e su lt i n th e tr ia l c ourt re vo kin g his partici patio n in the pr og ra

m. Potential violations included fa iling to repor t to the prog ram, depar

ting from the pr og ram without permission, and fa iling to per form the wor k assig ned. On J anuary

28, 2009, Castrellon was wor king in the w ork re lease prog ram unde r Offic er Car

rasc o’s s u p er v i s i o n . That day , the work c rewhad lunch in the wor k rele ase pr og ram building. Of

fice r Carr asco a llowed C astrellon and two other inmates to g o to Castrellon’s pickup for a s mo k e b r e a k

. O f

f ic e r Ca r r a s c o te s ti f

ie d th a t h e w a s a le rte d th a t s o me th in g w a s g o ing on outside, and he w ent outside to chec k on th e s i t u at i on. He testified that, as he a pproac hed Castr el l o n ’s pickup, he c ould smell what he believe d to be marihua na comingfrom the ve hicle. Offic er Car

rasc o testified t hat he asked what was g oing on a nd that one inmate r eplied that they wer e listening to the radio and sm oking cig are ttes. He ordere d Castrellon and the other inmates to g et out of the pickup a

nd to go inside the wo rk rele ase pr og ram building . Castrellon enter ed the wor k rele ase pr og ram building and sat on a bench. O ffice r Carr asco te stified that he asked Castre llon what
wa s g oin g on

in t he pic ku p. Hi s te sti mony

wa s a s f oll ow s: A. He sat down on the benc h that we provide for them. He sat down, and I a s k e d h i m . Is a i d , “ W e l l , w h a tw a s g o i n g o n ?” Q

. A n d d i d h e r e p l y? A. What he did , h e sat th e re , a nd he sh oo k his he a d. He sa id, y ou kn ow– if Irec all, he told me he wa sn’t g oing to go get i n trouble for any one and that, y ou know, he just – “I ’m not g oing to g et in trouble for any one,” he said.
Itold him, “Well, what wa s g oing on?” I said, “I f y ou don’t tell me” – I said, “You know, I

know what I

smelt. Tell me what’s going on, or, you know, we c an place y ou in jail.” Offic er Car

rasc o testified that Castrell o n t o l d him, “I ’m not g oing to g o to jail for those fools.” Offic er Car

rasc o further

testified t hat Castrellon said, “D ope wa s being smoked in the pickup truck
and that Inmate Pr

uitt w a s th e on e that ha d it on his perso n. ” Off

ic e r C a rr a sc o’ s in te rv ie w w ith 1M iranda v . Ar iz ona , 384 U .S. 436 (1966)

. 2 3 Castrellon lasted abou t five minutes. After Offic er Car

rasc o finished talking with Castrellon, he qu es t i o n edt h e ot h er t wo i n m at es . C as t re l l o nwa l k edo u t s i d e a n d p ac edt h e l en gt h o f t h e b u i l d i n g. Of fi c e r C arr a sc o d id n ot a dv ise Ca str e llo n o f h is Miranda rig hts, and he did not audiotape or 2 videotape the interview. Castrellon was indicted f or possessi on of a da

ng erous dr

ug , namely

marihuana , in a
corr ectional f

acility . Castrellon filed a motion to suppress his statements made to O ffice r Carr asco. Af te r a he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt

su pp re sse d th e state me nts , s ta tin g in i ts c on c lus ion s o f l aw that: (1) Castrellon was in cust o d y wh e n O f f ic e r Carra sco conduc ted his investigation; (2) Castrellon’s rig hts ag ainst self-incr i m i n ati on wer e violated unde r Miranda and T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 38.22, § 3 (V ernon 2005) ; and (3) Castrellon’s stat em ents wer e not voluntary beca use they wer e coe rce d by Offic er Car

rasc o’s threat to take Castrellon to jai l i f h e did not tell Office r Carra sco what was g oing on.

State’s Right to Appeal The State asser

ts that it has the rig ht to appea l the trial court’ s ruling on Ca strellon’s motion to suppress. The State ha s limi ted rig hts of appea l in criminal case s. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 44.01 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 09 ). Th e State is en tit le d to app e a l an or de r o f a c ourt in a c ri min a l c a se if the orde r g rants a motion to suppress evidence, if jeopar dy has not attac hed, and if the prosec utor
cer tifies to the trial court that the a ppeal is not taken for t he purpose of dela y and that the suppre ssed evidenc e is of substantial importance to the case

. Article 44.01(a) (5). The State a sserts in its brief that Castrellon’s suppre s s ed s t at ement wa s evidenc e that wa s substantially important to its case. Castrellon does not cha lleng e the State’ s rig ht to appeal. We, ther efor e, find that the State ha s a rig ht to appea l this case and w ill dis cuss its issues below. Issues on Appe al I n its second and third issues, the State a sserts that t h e t ri al court e rre d by finding that Ca str e llo n w a s in

c us tod y and un de rg oin g an in te rr og a tio n a nd the re by

re qu ir ingc omp lia

nc e wi th T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 38.22 (Vernon 2005) and Miranda , 3 84 U. S. 4 36 . T he State a lso4

a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y fi nd ing that Cast re llo n wa s thr e a te ne d or co e rc e d into makin g his statements to Offic er Car rasc o. Standard of Review I n revie wing a trial c ourt’s ruling on a motion to suppress, appellate courts must g ive g reat de fe re nc e to t

he tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s of his tor ic a l fa c ts a s lon g a s the re c or d s up po rt s th e fi nd ing s. Gu zm an v . S tat e , 95 5 S.W. 2d

85 , 8 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). I f t he tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g is r e a so na bly supported by

the re cord a

nd i s co rr ect on a

ny theory of law a pplicable to the c ase, the revie wing
c ourt wi ll su sta in the tr ia l c ourt’s f in din g s. Vi lla rre al v . S

tat e , 9 35 S.W. 2d

13 4, 13 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1996). W e also must aff ord gre at def

ere nce to the tr ial court’s r ulings on mix ed questions of law and f act if the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an eva luation of credi bility and d e me anor. Guzman , 955 S.W .2d at 89. Appellate courts, howe ver, c onduct de novo r eview on “mix ed questions of law and f act” not falling within the previous categ ory . Id. A q ue sti on “ tur ns ”
on an e va luation of cred ibi lity a nd de me ano r whe n th e te sti mony of on e or mor e wi tne sse s, if believed, is a lway s enoug h to add up to what is nee ded to dec ide the substantive issue. Loserth v. Sta te , 963 S.W .2d 770, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Vo lun tar ine

ss o f St ate me nt On c e an a c c us e d p re se nts e vid e nc e that r a ise s th e iss ue of vo lun tari ne ss, the S ta te mus t prove, by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that the statement was volunt ar i l y made. State v. Terrazas , 4 S.W. 3d 72 0 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). A state me nt i s in vo lun tary if the re wa s o ff

ic ia l,
coer cive c onduct of such a nature that a ny statement obtained the reby was unlikely

to have be en the product of a

n essentially fre e and unconstraine d choice by its maker. Al

v arad o v . S tat e , 912 S.W .2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). To dete rmine if the c onfession wa s voluntary , the re viewing court
mus t e xami ne the tot ality of the c ir c ums tanc e s su

rr ound ingthe a c qu isi tio n o f t he state me nt t o deter mine whether it wa s g iven voluntarily

. Id. Wit hout coer cive police conduct c ausally related to the confe ssion, there is no basis for c oncluding that any state ac to r h as d ep ri v ed a cr iminal defe ndant of due proce ss of law. Col orad o v . Co nn e lly , 479 U. S. 157 , 164 (1 98 6) . Ac ourt sh ou ld examine the circ u

ms ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g th e c onfession, including the conduc t of the law e nforc ement officia ls and t h e ca p acity of the suspec t to resist pressure to confe ss. United States v. Casal , 915 F.2d 1225, 1228 ( 8th Cir. 1990). A confes s i on cannot be used whe re the prisoner ha s been5

influence d by

any threat be cause the law cannot measure the forc e of the influence used. Martinez v. Sta te , 1 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d

7 9 2 , 7 9 6 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Bram v. United States , 168 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1897) ). The ultimate question to deter mine voluntariness i s “whe ther the suspe ct’s will was
ov er b o rn e” b y t h e conduc t of the state a ctor. Cre ag e r v . S tat e , 9 52 S.W. 2d

85 2, 85 6 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997 ). Some rele vant circ umstances include the leng th of the dete ntion and interrog ation, whether the def endant wa s permitted ac cess to his family or attorne y , and the pr esenc e or a bsence of phy sical brutality

. Go me s v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 373, 377 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, p et

. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Ar

ms tro ng v . S tat e , 718 S.W .2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), overruled on othe r gr ou nd s b yMo sle yv . S tat e , 983 S.W .2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). A def endant’ s char acte ristics and status, a s well as the c onduct of the police , are also important conce rns. Hayne s v. W ashington , 373 U.S. 503, 517 (1963). The State a

rg ues that C a s tr e ll o n ’ s s ta

te me nts w e r e v o lu

nta ry beca use he w as only

interviewe d for f ive minutes, that Offic er Carrasc o’s demeanor was polite and respectf ul, that Offic er Car

rasc o did not point a gun at Castrellon or handcuff him, and that Castrellon did not ask to speak to a lawy er
or a sk to v isi t w ithfa

mil y me mbe rs . T he State a lso argue s th a t Cast re llo n sig ne d ana

pp lic a tio n to participate in the work r elea se prog ram wher eby he ag ree d to f ollow the rules of the prog ram. The State , h ow e ve r, fa ils to a dd re ss O ff ic e r C arr a sc o’ s th re a t to pu t Cast re llo n in jail

. Court s h a ve he ld that a d e f e n d an t’ s s tate me n t w a s c o e r c e d b y a v e r b a l thr e a t a lo n e an d n o t p h y s ic a l b r u ta lity

. See L y n u m n v
. I

l l i n o is , 3 7 2 U. S . 528, 531 (1963) ( confe ssion involunt ary when police told suspect confe ssion would produce he lp and re commendation of leniency , but denial would re sult in l oss of
we lf are pa y me nts and

c us tod y of c hil dr e n) ; Rogers v. Ric hmond , 365 U.S. 534, 535 (1961) (conf ession involuntary

when police told suspect they would take his wife into custody). Be cause of Castrellon’s status as a n inmate par

ticipating in the w ork re lease prog ram a nd the conduct of

Offic er Car

rasc o, we c onclude that the trial court did not abuse its discre tion by finding t h at C as t re l l o nwa s co er ce d i n t o m ak i n g t h e s t at em en t s t o Of fi ce r C arra s co . E v en t h o u gh Offic er Carrasc o did not use a g un or handc uffs a nd spoke in a polite tone, Castre llon was threatened with jail if he did not give a stateme nt. Castrellon testified that he did not think that he could leave
un til he tol d Of

fi c e r Carr a sc o wh a t ha

pp e ne d ou tsi de

. He fu

rt he r t e sti fi e d th a t he be lie ve d th a t, i f he did not talk to O ffice r Carra sco, he would be put in jail. Ca strellon knew that Of fice r Carr asco6

po sse sse d s ome a

uth or ity ov e r h im, and he be lie ve d th a t he c ou ld g o to ja il i f h e did no t ta lk t o Offic er Car

rasc o. Castrellon’s st atement – “I ’m not g oing to jail for those fools” – indicated that the only rea son he told Offic er Car rasc o what was g oing on was that he did not want to go to jail. The
e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a c on c lus ion

that Ca str e llo n’ s wi ll wa s ov e rb or ne by Of fi c e r Carr a sc o’ s th re a t to take him to jail. Fur ther, the State argues that Castrellon knew that he could g o to jail if he did not follow the
ru le s o f t he wo rk re le a se pr og ra

m be c a us e he sig ne d th e a

pp lic a tio n to do the wo rk

re le a se pr og ra

m. Howeve r, the a

pplication did not speci fy t h at answering any questions asked by

the police or

the of fi c e r i n c ha

rg e wa s o ne of

the ru le s o f t

he pr og ram or

that, b y a pp lyingfo r t

he wo rk re le a se prog ram, he was wa iving his rig ht to remain silent. We decline to hold that Castrellon’s constitutional rights ag ainst self-i n cr i m i n ation wer e limited as a re sult of his participation in the work re lease prog ram. The e vidence that we have outlined abo v e, v i ewe d in the light most favor able to the tria l court’s r uling, supports the tria l court’s finding that Castrellon’s statements wer e not voluntar y . The trial court did not er

r whe n it gr anted Castre llon’s motion to suppress. We overr ule t he State’s third iss ue on a pp e a l. B e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

c on c lud ingtha

t th e state me nts
wer e not voluntarily g iven, the statements wer e proper ly suppressed for that rea son, and we need not addre ss the State’s other two issues. Conclusion We affir m the trial court’ s order

.

RI CK STRANGE JUSTI CE

J anuar y 29, 2010 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., McCall, J ., and Strang e, J.