### NUM BER 13-08- 0043 6-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 - 

## EDI NBURG
JOSE CA RB A

JA L, A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel la n t J o se Ca rb aja l ch a lle n ges hi s co n vict io n fo r aggra vat e d se xua l a ss a u lt and ind ecenc y

w it h a c hil d on the g ro unds that the t ri al cour t er re d i n deny ing hi s mot ion to suppress hi s w ri tten sta tement g iv en to p o lic e. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 21.11, 22. 021 (a)(1)(B), ( 2)(B) (Vernon Sup p. 200 9). By one issue, Carbajal argues thatbeca useB e c a u s e th i s i s a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n a n d th e p a rti e s a re fa m i l i a r w i th th e fa c ts , w e w i l l n o t re c i te 1 th e m h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry to a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4.

T he p ar t i es do not di sput e t hat C ar baj al ' s r eadi ng a nd wr i t i ng ski l l s ar e l i m i t ed. I t i s al so un di sput ed 2 t hat C ar baj al ' s pr i m ar y l angua ge i s Spani sh. However , t he p ar t i es di sagr ee o v er t he e xt ent t o whi ch Car baj al under st ands spoken Engl i sh. 2 he did not kn owi ngly , v olun tarily , and intelligentlyw aive his Mi ra nda rig hts atthe tim e of his all eg ed cus todi al int er ro g ati on, the tr ial cour t er re d in deny ing his moti on to s uppr ess
. See T EX
. C ODE
. C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art 38. 22, § 2( b) ( Ver non 200 5) ; Mi ra nda v . Ar izona , 384 U .S. 43 6, 4 44 ( 19 66 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 In A ug ust2007, the Kl eberg C ounty Sher iff's D epar

tment beg an i nv est ig ati ng the al l eg ed s ex ua l a s s au l t of A .O ., a t en - y ea r- ol d g i r l

. C ar ba j al , A. O. ' s g r an dfa th er , be c am e a s uspec t i n the ca se. A sher iff's de par tment inv est ig ator

att empted to cont actC ar baj al to arran ge an interview but was unab le to reach him. Inst ead , Carbajal volu n t a rily appeared at the sher iff's off ic e to "cl ear thi ng s u p" reg ardin g the inc ide nt w it h A. O. After he a rriv ed a t the sherif f 's of f ice, an inv esti gator intervi ewed Carbajal regarding A.O.'s allegation s. Before be ginning the interview , the in v estigator read Carbajal his Mi ra nda ri g hts and ask ed i f he understo od hi s r ig hts

. After Car baj al ind ic ated his as sent , t he investig ato r wro t e "yes" on th e stat em ent . Th e inte rv iew w as con duct ed p rimarily in Spa nish, a nd th e investig ato r the n w rote Carbajal's statem entin English. Anoth er sherif f 's 2 of f ice em ployee cam e into the inte rv iew room a nd read t he state me nt back to Carbajal in Eng li sh, after

w hic h C ar baj al si g ned the sta tement. It is undi sput ed th at C ar baj al w as not handc uff ed dur ing the int er v iew

. After Car baj al si g ned t he s tatement , ho wever, the inv est ig ator

pl aced Car baj al under ar re st.3

Car baj al w as ind ic ted o n tw o counts of agg ra v ated sex ual assaul t and tw o c ounts of indec ency

w it h a c hil d. Car baj al mov ed to suppress the w ri tten sta tement he g av e the inv est ig ator

at the sher iff's of

fice under

the Tex as Code of

Cri minal Proc edur e and Uni ted Stat es and Tex as Cons ti tuti ons, arg uin g that , w hil e he w as in the c ust ody of the p oli ce, he g av e a s tatementw it hout know ing ly , i ntel li g entl y , and v olu ntar il y w aiv ing hi s r ig hts

. The tr ial co urt c onduc ted a hear ing on t he moti on and heard the foll ow ing tes ti mony : Lt. Dav id Mendoza Lt. Men doza is the she riff 's depa rtme nt i nvestigator w ho interv iew ed Carbajal. He tes ti fied th at C ar baj al came t o the sher iff's off ic e v olu ntar il y w it h hi s w ife and that no pat ro l
car pi ck ed hi m up. Lt. M endoz a s tated thatw hen Car baj al ar ri v ed, he esc orted C ar baj al t o h i s o ffi c e , w h e r e h e t o l d C a r b aj a l t o ma k e h i ms e l f c o mfo rt a b l e a n d a s k e d C a r b aj a l ' s w i fe to w ait ou tside. He testif ied that they eventua lly mo v ed to a dif feren t room w ith a tab le so that Lt. Me ndoz a c oul d si t cl oser to C ar baj al as he w as transc ri bin g C ar baj al' s s tatement int o Eng li sh. Lt . M endoz a s tated that , al thoug h C ar baj al w as a s uspec t atthe ti me he came t o the sh er iff's office, Lt. M endoz a w oul d hav e l et hi m w alk out if h e had not g iv en a s tatement

. Yv onne Barbour Barbo ur is the sherif

f 's d epa rtme nt em ployee w ho rea d Carbaja l's statem entback to hi m before he s ig ned i t. Bar bour tes ti fied th at C ar baj al tol d her he u ndersto od Eng li sh. Jose C arb aj al Car baj al tes ti fied th at he nev er sp oke to t he s her iff's de par tment before h e
v olu ntar il y

sh ow ed up at t hei r off ic e. He sta ted that he had heard ru mors at w or k t hat A .O.
w as accu sing him of

mole sting her, so he a rranged for his w ife to drive him to th e she riff 'sC arb ajal al s o ob j ec t ed at t ri al t o t he ad m i s s i on of hi s w ri t t en s t atem en t t o t he sh eri ff' s i nve s t i ga t or, 3 but t he t r i al cour t ov er r ul ed t he o bj ect i ons. 4 of f ice in Kingsv ille to " clear things up. " Ca rbajal testif ied tha t he told Lt. Men doza his story from st art t o fini sh and that Lt. Me ndoz a as ked no q uest ion s d ur ing the proces s. H e s tated tha t he did not un dersta nd h is Mi ra nda ri g hts

. Car baj al tes ti fied th at he di d notkn ow he
w as a s uspec t and di d notr eal iz e he w as in troubl e until after he si g ned hi s s tatementand his w ife tol d hi m he s houl d nothav e done so. T he trial cou rt denie d the m o t io n t o s u ppre ss and f iled no f indings of fact in
co n n e ct io n w it h th e su p p re ss io n he a rin g. The c a s e p ro c e e d e d t o t r i a l , a n d t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a g u i l t y v e rd i c t o n one of the
coun ts of aggravated sex ual assault and bot h coun ts of indece ncy w ith a child. The jury 3
a s s e s s e d p u n is h m e n ta tt h irt y ye a rs ' in c a rc e ra t io n fo r t h e se xu a l a s s a u lt co u n ta n d f ive y ears' i ncarcerati on for each indec ency

count; the tr ial co urt order ed th e s entenc es to r un conc ur re ntl y . This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W W e rev i e w

a t r i a l c o u rt ' s r u l i n g o n a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s fo r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n, appl y ing a bifur cat ed sta ndard of rev iew

. St. Geor ge v . St ate , 2 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 5 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007) ; State v. Vasq uez , N o
. 1 3 -0 8 -0 0 6 0 2 -C R, 2 0 0 9 W L 4 6 8 8 6 0 0 , a t*4 (T e x. A p p
. – Co rp u s Ch ri s t i De c
. 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , p e t

. f il e d ). T h e b if u rc a t e d st a n d a rd re qu ir e s t h a twe g iv e "al most total def er ence" to the tri al cour t' s fin din g s o f his tor ic al fact th at are s uppor ted by the re cord and to mi x ed q uest ion s of l aw and fact th at t ur n on an ev alu ati on of credi bil it y and demean or
. Her

re ra v. Sta te , 241 S.W .3d 520 , 526 -27 (Te x . Crim. A pp. 200 7).5

How ev er , w e rev iew

de n ov o the tr ial co urt' s d ete rm in ati on of the law and it s a ppl ic ati on of law to facts that do not turn upon an eva lua ti on of credi bil it y

and demeanor

. Id. at 52 7; St. Geor ge , 237 S.W .3d a t 725

. W hen t he tr ial cour t has not made a find ing on a r ele v ant fac t, w e v i ew

the e v i de nc e i n th e l i g htmo s t fav orab l e to t he t r i al c ou rt' s r ul i ng a nd a s s um e the tr ial cour

t made impl ic it findi ng s of factsu ppor ted b y the re cord. Herrera , 241 S.W .3d at 52 7. W e w il l uphol d the tr ial cour t' s ru li ng if it is re asona bly suppo rt ed by the re cord and is co rrectunder

any theory of law appli cabl e to the cas e. State v . D ixon , 206 S.W .3d 5 87, 590 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; Vasq uez , 200 9 W L 46886 00, a t * 4. III . C USTODI A L I NT E RROG A TI ON Th e F i ft h A me n d me n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n p ro v i d e s t h a t no per son "shal l be compel led in any cr imi nal cas e to be a w it ness ag ain st hims elf .

. . ." U .S. C ON ST
. a me n d

. V

. T o " s a fe g u a r d a n u n c o u n s e l e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s ts e l finc ri minat ion ," t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t has presc ri bed a ser ies of w ar nin g s t hat must be g iv en to the ind iv idu al dur ing cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on. Herrera , 241 S.W .3d a t 525 (ci ti n g Mi

ra nda v . Ar izona , 384 U.S. 436 , 442 -57 (19 6 6 ))

. The State may not use "[u]nw ar ned s ta te m e nts obta ine d as a resul t of cu sto dia l int er ro g ati on" as ev ide nce in a cr imi nal proceed ing

. Id. Ar ti cl e 38. 22 of

the Tex as Code of

Cri minal Proc edur e s ets out the state law

corollary

to the fede ral Mi

ra nda re q uirements and prov ide s t hat "[ n]o w ri tten sta tement ma d e b y a n a c c u s e d a s a r e s u l t o f c u s t o d i a l i n t e r ro g a t i o n i s a d mi s s i b l e as ev ide nce ag ain st him" unl ess i t i s s how n tha t t he ac cus ed w as w ar ned of hi s r ig hts and kno wingly, i ntel li g entl y , and v olu ntar il y w aiv ed th em. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 38. 22, § 2(a)-(b). How ever, a person's rights unde r the T exas Code of Cri min al Proced ure6

and the Unite d Sta tes an d T exas Constitut ions are t ri gge re d on ly w hen the pe rson is show n to be i n c ust ody

. See Za va la v. St a te , 956 S.W .2d 7 15, 7 23 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 1997 , no pe t.). "[T ]he def end antbea rs the initial burd en o f provi ng th at a stat em entw as the produ ct of ' cus todi al int er ro g ati on.' " Herrera , 2 4 1 S. W .3 d at52 6 (quo ti n g W il ker son v. State , 173 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 2 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 ))

. Cu s t o d y i s e va lu a t e d o n a n " a d h o c " b a s is ; we app ly a "reaso nab le person " stan dard and ask if, und er t he tota lity o f t he circum stan ces, "a reas onabl e pers on w oul d beli ev e that his freedom of mov ement w as re strain ed to the deg re e as soc iat ed w it h a formal ar re st. " Dowth itt v . St ate , 9 3 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 4 -5 5 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1996) (cit in g S ta nsbu ry v. C alifornia , 511 U .S. 318, 322 ( 1994) ). I n oth er
w ords, w e make tw o di sc re te i nq uir ies i n our cu sto dy dete rmi nati on: firs t, w e i nq uire as to the object iv e circumst ance s surround ing the interrogation ; a n d s e c ond , gi v en th ose ci rc umstan ces , w e ask w hether "a reason abl e person [w oul d] ha v e felt he or sh e w as not at li ber ty to ter minat e the int er ro g ati on and lea v e." Herrera , 241 S.W .3d a t 532 ( int er nal citations omi tted)

. There ar e four g eneral si tuati ons in w hic h c ust ody may ar is e and a perso n mu st be warned of his ri ghts before the interrogation procee ds: (1 ) w hen t he s uspec t i s p hy si cal ly depr iv ed of hi s fr eedom of act ion i n any si g nific ant w ay , ( 2) w hen a law enfor cementof

ficer tell s the suspe ct that he cann ot lea v e, (3) w hen law enforcem entof

f icers create a situ ation thatw ould lea d a re asona ble person to bel iev e that his freedom of mov ement ha s b een si g nific antl y

rest ri cte d, an d ( 4) w hen t her e i s probabl e c ause to ar re st and law enforc ement officers d o nottel l the s uspec t he is free to l eav e. Dowth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 255

. In th e fourth situatio n, th e of f icers' know ledge of

proba ble
caus e mustbe mani fested t o the su spec t; "[s] uch manifest ati on coul d occ ur i f informati on7

subs tanti ati ng probabl e c ause is re lat ed by the off ic ers to the s uspec t or by the sus pectto the o ff ic ers." Id. T he m anif esta tion o f proba ble cau se do es no t "au tom atically esta blish
cus tody ," how ev er
. Id. Probabl e c ause is but one facto r in deter mini ng w hether the ci rc umstan ces of the i nter ro g ati on "w oul d l ead a re asona ble person to beli ev e he is under
re strain t t o the deg re e as soc iat ed w it h an ar re st. " Id. If a person v olu ntar il y

su bmit s t o an int er

v iew bya p o lic e o ff ic er

and know s o r shoul d k now

thatl aw enforc ement s uspec ts his i nv olv ement i n the cr ime bei ng inv est ig ated, hi s fr eedom of mov ement i s n ot ne ces sar il y r est ra ine d and he i s n ot
neces sar il y

i n c ust ody

. Vasq uez , 2 0 0 9 W L 46 8 8 6 0 0 , a t * 4 (cit in g Shi flet v . St ate , 732 S.W .2d 6 22, 6 30 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) ); see Zava la , 956 S.W .2d at 724. M or eov er , t he
re adi ng of Mi ra nda w ar nin g s d oes not "a utomati cal ly transfor m a non- cus todi al set ti ng i nto
a c ust odi al int er ro g ati on." Vasq uez , 200 9 W L 46886 00 , at *5. How ev er , the factthatan interrogation begins as non -custod ial "do es no t prevent custo dy from a r i s i ng later" be cause of poli ce condu ct dur ing the encou nter that caus es "a c onsen sual i nq uir y to esc ala te i nto
cus todi al in ter ro g ati on." Dowth itt , 931 S.W .2d a t 255 ; Vasq uez , 2009 W L 4688600, at * 4. IV. D I S CUS S I ON By his sole issue o n ap pea l, Carbajal argues tha t the t rial cou rt e rred in den y ing his
mo tion to supp ress beca use h e did no t knowing ly , intelligently, a n d volunt arily w aive his ri g hts before maki ng hi s w ri tten sta tement. Spec ific all y , C ar baj al arg ues that becau se he does not read or w ri te fluentl y in Eng li sh, the pol ic e off ic er w ho to ok his st atement did not adeq uatel y

appr is e hi m of his r ig hts

.8

Car baj al fails to ex pla in, how ev er , w hether hi s r ig ht t o be w ar ned w as ev er tr ig g er ed in the first pla ce. S ee Zavala , 9 5 6 S .W .2 d at 723 ( hol din g thata pe rs on's r ig hts to be
w ar ned come into play

only w hen the pers on is in cus tody ). It i s u ndi sput ed th at C ar baj al
v o l u n t a r i l y a p p e a r e d a t t h e s h e r i ff' s o ffi c e o u t o f a d e s i r e t o " c l e a r thi ng s u p." See Vasq uez , 200 9 W L 46886 00, a t * 4 ( hol din g thata pe rs on's v olu n ta ry su bmis si on to an int er v iew by a po li ce off ic er

does not ind ic ate rest ra intof his freedom o f m ov ement an d thus cu sto dy ). H e w as not for mall y su mmoned by

the sher iff's office o r esc orted t o the off ic e in a patrol car , and once there, he w as made comfortabl e byLt. M endoz a and nev er handc uff ed duri ng the int er v iew

. See Herrera , 241 S.W .3d at 532 (requiri ng that we i nquire int o the obj ect iv e c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the int er ro g ati on)

. Car baj al tol d hi s s tor y to Lt. Me ndoz a freel y

w it hout bei ng i nter ru pted by i nter ro g ati on- sty le q uest ion ing

. See i d. Al thoug h C ar baj al w as cons ide re d a s uspec t by Lt. M endoz a, t hat i nformati on w as nev er direct ly rel ated to Car baj al, and Lt. Me ndoz a s tated thatC ar baj al w oul d hav e been free t o lea v e the sh er iff's office if he h ad notgi v en a stat ement. See D owthitt , 931 S.W .3d a t 255 (ho ldi ng thatan o ff ic er 's su spi ci ons must be mani fested t o the su spec t t o g iv e r is e to "cus tody "). I n fact, C ar baj al hims elf t e st if ie d at the s uppr ess ion hear ing thathe n ev er consid ered himse lf

a suspe ct and did not realiz e he might be in trouble un til his w ife told him he s houl d nothav e s ig ned t he s tatement

. The onl y factor arg uabl y

i ndi cat ing cu sto dy

i s t hat p ro babl e c ause became apparent d u rin g t h e i nter

v iew w hen C ar baj al impl ic ated hims elf i n the se x ual enc ounter w it h and
ass aul t of A.O

. See i

d. H ow ev er , c onsi der ing the enti re ty of the c ircums tanc es, w e c annot conclu de th at th is one facto r outweig hs the previ o u sly discussed ev iden ce, all of w hich9

mil it ates ag ain st a findi ng thata re asona ble person w oul d hav e felt he w as not a t l ibe rt y to t er minat e t h e i n te rv iew and lea v e. See Herrera , 241 S.W .3d a t 532 ; Dowth itt , 931 S.W .2d a t 255

. In s um, our

rev iew of the record rev eal s tha t, a t th e time he made hi s s tatement , Car baj al w as not i n c ust ody and w as, therefore, not enti tl ed to be w ar ned of hi s r ig hts

. See Zavala , 956 S.W .2d at 723. Und er the total it y

of the ci rc umstan ces , no re asona ble person coul d hav e bel iev ed th at hi s mov ement w as re strain ed to the deg re e as soc iat e d wit h a formal ar re st. See Herrera , 241 S.W .3d a t 525 ; Dowth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 254- 55. Therefor e, th e tri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n deny ing C ar baj al' s mot ion to suppress
. See Herrera , 241 S.W .3d a t 526 -2 7; D ixon , 206 S. W .3d a t 590 ( commandi ng tha t w e up hold a trial court's ruling if it is reaso nab ly

su ppo rted by the reco rd a nd is correct under any theo ry of appl ic abl e l aw ). C ar baj al' s s ole i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

V. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 11th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.