## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0917- 08 A N G EL R ESE N D EZ , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE FOUR TEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and W OMACK , K EASLE R , H ERVEY and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . H OL C OM B , J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS and J OHNS ON , JJ . , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N T he appe l l antgave a vi deot aped st at ement i n w hi ch he confe s s ed t o s hoot i ng A m anda G ar za. H e l at er pl ed gui l t yt o herm ur der , and t he t r i al cour tfound hi m gui l t yand as s es s ed puni s hm e n t a t n i n e t y - n i n e y e a r s i n p r i s o n . Th e Fo u r t e e n t h Cou r t o f App e a l s r e v e r s e d and
rem and ed, ho l ding t hat the tr i al cou rterr ed w hen i t den i ed t he app el l ant’ s m oti on t o sup press t he co nf e ss io n becau se t he p oli ce had fai l ed to m em ori al i ze t he ap pell ant’ s Mi r anda
w ar ni ngs on t he vi deot ape a s r equi r ed by C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i onResendez — 2

1 Resende z v. State, 25 6 S.W.3 d 315 , 336 –3 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 07 ); T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a

rt . 3 8. 22 , § 3( a)( 2) ; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 T EX . R. A PP . P. 66.3(c)
. 3( a) ( 2)
. W e gr ant ed t he St at e’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onar y r evi ew i n or dert o det er m i ne ( 1)

1

w h e th e r th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls w a s c o rre c t in h o ld in g th a t th e a p p e llan t p re se rv e d h is A rticle 3 8 .2 2 a rg u m e n t f

o r a p p e a l, an d (2 ) w h e th e r th e a p p e llan t w a s in c u sto d yw h e n h e g a v e h is
v id e o ta p e d c o n f

e ss io n . B e c a u se w e h o ld th a t th e a p p e llan t d id n o t p re se rv e h is A rticle

2 3 8 .2 2 a rg u m e n t f

o r a p p e a l, w e re v e rse th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s ju d g m e n t. BA CKGROUND V i deot aped C onf

es s i on Du r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e mur d e ro f Am a n d a Ga r z a , t h e a p p e l l a n tg a v e t wo vi deot aped s t at ement s t o t he pol i ce. I n t he fi r s ts t at ement , t he appe l l antal l eged thatanot her
m an, St eve Per ez, had fi r ed t he fours hot s t hatki l l ed G ar za. B efor e t hi s s t at ement , t he pol i ce g a v e th e a p p e llan t Mi r anda w ar ni ngs . T w o day s l at er , t he appe l l antgave a s econd s t at ement i n w hi ch he confe s s ed t o fi r i ng t he fi r s t s hot at G ar za. T he pol i ce di d notgi ve t he appe l l ant Mi r anda w a rn in g s e ith e r b e f o re o r d u rin g th is s e c o n d sta tem e n t. M oti on s t o S u p p ress T he appe l l antfi l ed t w o m ot i ons t o s uppr es s hi s s econd s t at ement . T he fi r s tm ot i on, fi l ed byt he appe l l ant ’ s fi r s t at t or ney i n Sept ember of 2003, cont ai ned bot h cons t i tut i onal and st at utor yargum ents :Resendez — 3

3 Emphasis added. ! A tt he t i m e of a nyconver s at i ons bet w een [ t he appellant] and l aw enfor cementoffi cer s , [t he appe l l ant ] w as (a) underar r es tor( b) s ubs t ant i al l ydeprived of fr eedom byt he conduc tof t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer s and t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t h e arr es tor d e p r i v a t i o n o f

f r e e d o m.
! A n ystat em en ts m ad e b y[th e a p p ell an t] w ere inv o lu n taryan d w ere co erc ed an d en ti ce d fro m [th e a p p ell an t]
. ! [The appel l ant ] w as depr i ved of hi s r i ghtt o couns el and [he] di d not m a k e a n in tellig e n t an d k n o w in g w a iv e r o f th a t rig h t.
! T he s t at ement s m ade by [t he appel l ant ] w er e t ai nt ed by t he i l l egal and un l aw ful det enti on and arr estof [ t he ap pell ant] , i n v i olat i on of [ his ] c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d e r th e F if th [ sic : F o u rth ? ] a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s of t he C ons t i tut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es , A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 9 of t he Texas C o n sti tut i on, and A r t i cl e 38. 23 of t he Texas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e.
! St at em ent

s m ade by [the appel l ant ] w er e t aken w i thout the s af eguar ds r equi r ed by and i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e 38. 22 of the C ode of C rim inal P r ocedur e. 3
! T he ad m i ssi on of st at em ents by[t he ap pell ant] i s a vi o latio n of [ his ] rig h ts p u rsu a n t to th e F o u rth , F if th , S ix th , a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts to the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, A r t i cl e I , Sect i ons 9 and 10 of the T exas C ons t i tut i on, and A r t i cl es 1. 05 and 38. 23 of t he Texas C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. W ith o u t h a v in g o b tain e d a su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , the a p p e llan t re tain e d n e w c o u n se l. A n d in O ctob er o f 2 0 0 4 , thir teen m o n ths af ter the fil ing o f the first m o ti o n , the a p p ell an t’ s
n e w a tt o rn e yf

iled a se c o n d m o tio n to su p p re ss . T h is s e c o n d m o tio n c o n tain e d o n ly
con st i tuti on al argum ents :Resendez — 4

4 Although theappellant include d the word “ statutes” in this final bullet-point, it appear s that he wa s ref

erring to the c onstitut ional provisions previousl y l i s t ed
. I f he intended to refe r to any statut or y prov isi on s, hene ve r i de nti fi e d th e m. ! D uri ng t he i nves t i gat i on of t hi s cas e, t he [a ppel l ant ] has gi ven a sta te m e n t w h ic h th e S tate o f T e x a s in ten d s to u se a g a in st h im . T h is s t at ement i s a confe s s i on [i n w hi ch t he appel l ant ] admi t s t o s hoot i ng t he compl ai ni ng w i t nes s w i t houtl egal j us t i fi cat i on.
! It is th e p o sit io n o f th e [ a p p e llan t] th a t th is c o n f e ss io n w a s e licite d in vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s as guar ant eed byt he C ons t i tut i on[ ] of t he U ni t ed St at es , undert he Fi ft h A m endment , and t he C ons t i tut i on of t he St at e of T exas , A r t i cl e I
. Fu rt her , [t he appe l l ant ] ar gues t hatt hi s confe s s i on w as t aken c ont r ar yt o t he manneri n w hich the C r i m i nal C our t s have i nterpret ed those st at utes . 4 In N o v em b er of 2 0 0 4 , sh o rt ly af ter the fil ing o f t h e sec o n d m o ti o n , th e tr ia l c o u rt conduct ed a s uppr es s i on hear i ng. D ur i ng t he hear i ng, t he appel l ant ar gued t hathi s s econd vi deot aped s t at ement w as “i nadmi s s abl e, es s ent i al l y an i nvol unt ar y s t at ement gi ven byt he [appe l l ant ] notunder s t andi ng cer t ai n r i ght s t hathad bee n guar ant eed hi m bot h under Mi r anda a n d o u r S tate C o n stitu tio n [ .] ” T h e a p p e llan t n e v e r re f e rre d d ire c tlyto A rticle 3 8
. 2 2
. T h e r e c o r d o f

t h e h e a r i n g r e v e a l s t h e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o q u y: [A ppel l ant ’ s C ouns el ] : A gai n, t her e’ s not hi ng on [the tr ans cr i ptof t he vi deot ape] w hi ch w oul d be r efl ect i ve of hi m bei ng r ead hi s M i r anda w ar ni ngs att he begi nni ng, t hati t ’ s a verbat i m t r ans cr i ptof w hathe si m pl ys ai d. T hey d id n o t Mi r andi

z e hi m on t he t ape, w h ich they di d notdo, t hat ’ s cl ear . T he C o u rt’s h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto re v iew th a t ta p e , [ th e tra n sc rip t] is n o t g o in g to b e r e f l e c t i v e o f

a n y Mi r anda w arn ing s g iven thu s fa r. THE COURT : I u n d e r s t a n d , c o u n s e l
. Yo u h a v e ma d e a f i n e p o i n to f

l a w. L at eri n t he hea r i ng, t he St at e’ s couns el s ai d, “W e w i l l s t i pul at e now her e on t he vi deot apeResendez — 5

5 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.22, § 3(a)(2)
. 6 Resende z v. State, No. 1 4
- 0 5
- 0 0 0 9 8
- CR , 2 0 0 6 T e x. Ap p . LE X I S 1 0 1 3 8 , at * 1 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] Nov. 28, 2006) [hereina fter Re se nd e z I ], withdraw n and overruled, 256 S.W .3d 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007). of St at e’ s E xhi bi tN o. 2- A i s t her e Mi r andiz ed w ar ni ngs [s i c] gi ven t o t hi s defe ndant [. ] ” The t ri al cou rtult i m at el yden i ed the m oti on t o sup press . C o u r t o f A p p e a ls O n di r ectappea l , t he appe l l ant ar gued t hat t he t r i al cour ter r ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s beca us e “t he vi deot ape does not cont ai n a w ai ver of appel l ant ’ s r i g h ts un der Mi r anda and t he s t at e confes s i on s t atut e” and becaus e “t he vi deot ape does notcont ai n t he
w ar ni ngs r equi r ed by A r t i cl e 38. 22 of t he C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. ” C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2) pr ovi des t hator al s t at ement s m ade dur i ng cus t odi al i nt er r ogat i on ar e notadmi s s i bl e as evi dence unl es s “pr i o r to the sta t ement butdur i ng t he
r ecor di n g t h e a c c u s e d i s g i v e n t h e warn i n g i n Su b s e c t i o n ( a ) o f Se c t i o n 2 a b o v e a nd t he
a c c u s e d k n o w in g ly, in te llig e n tly, a n d v o lu n ta ri ly w a iv e s a n yri g h ts s e t o u t in th e w a rn in g .” 5 T h e c o u rto f a p p ea ls i ssu ed a pu b li sh ed o p inion in w h ich it r ev erse d the a p p ell an t’ s convi ct i on. T he S t at e t hen fi l ed a m ot i on for r ehea r i ng. T he cour t of appeal s over rul ed t he

6
m o tio n , b u t it w ith d re w its o rig in a l o p in io n a n d iss u e d a su b stitu te o p in io n in w h ich it ag a in
r ever s ed t he appel l ant ’ s convi ct i on; i t hel d t hat , beca us e t he appe l l antw as i n cus t odyw hen he gave hi s s econd s t at ement , t he abs ence of Mi r anda w ar ni ngs r endered the s t at ementResendez — 6

7 Resende z v. State, 256 S.W .3d 3 1 5 , 3 2 7 ( T e x. A pp . — H o u s ton [14th Dist.] 2007) [hereina fter Resende z II ]. 8 Resende z II, supra, at 333. 9 Id. at 336–37. i n a d mi s s i b l e a s a ma t t e ro f f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w. 7 A ft ert he cour tof appe al s i s s ued i t s s ubs t i tut e opi ni on, t he S t at e fi l ed a se cond mot i on forr ehea r i ng i n w hi ch i tar gued t hati tw as i r r el evantforcons t i tut i onal purpos es w het hert he appel l ant w as i n cus t ody dur i ng t he sec ond i nt er vi ew beca us e t he Mi r anda w ar ni ngs gi ven dur i ng t he fi r s ti nt er vi ew r emai ned i n eff ect dur i ng t he sec ond i nt er vi ew t w o day s l at er . T he appel l antr es ponded by r ei t er at i ng t hat even i f t he Mi r anda wa r n i n g s r e ma i n e d i n e f f e c tt wo day s l at er , t he s t at ement w as i nadmi s s i bl e as a mat t erof s t at e l aw u n d er A r t i cl e 38. 22, S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c e d i d n o tm e m o r i a l i z e a n y Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on t he vi deot ape. A l t hough t he cour tof appe al s di d notgr antr ehea r i ng , it d id is s ue a s uppl ement al opi ni on. I n t he s uppl ement al opi ni on, the co u rt of appe al s concl uded t hatt he Mi r anda
w ar ni ngs t hatt he pol i ce ga ve t o t he appe l l antbefor e hi s fi r s ts t at ement r emai ned i n eff ect d u r in g h is se c o n d sta tem e n t, an d th u s th e re w e re n o v io latio n s o f f e d e ra l o r sta te
con st i tuti on al l aw . B ut the t ri al cou rtnev ertheles s er red i n d eny i ng t he m oti on t o sup press 8 the a p p ell an t’ s sec o n d stat em en t, the c o u rto f ap p ea ls h eld, be ca u se th e p o li ce d id n o t r ec o rd
a n y Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on t he vi deot ape, as r equi r ed byA r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2)
. T he 9Resendez — 7

10 Id. at 335. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)( 1)(A)
. c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re

jec ted th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e a p p e llan t h a d n o t p re se rv e d th e A rticle 38. 22 cl ai m forappea l , hol di ng t hatt he appe l l anthad i nvoked t he A rt icl e 38. 22 vi ol at i on
w ith su f f icie n t sp e c if

icityd u rin g th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g . M o re o v e r, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls 10 hel d, i tw as cl ear t hat t he t r i al j udge and opposi ng couns el under s t ood t hatt he appe l l antw as
m a k in g th is s tatu to rya rg u m e n t: 11 W e nee d notengage i n s pecul at i on as t o w het hert he cour tw as aw ar e of appel l ant ’ s compl ai nt . T he t r i al co u rt ’s s t at ement [t hati tunder s t ood appel l ant ’ s ar gum ent ] and t he pr os ecut or ’ s s t i pul at i on [t h at n ow her e on t he v ideo t ape a r e t her e Mi r anda w ar ni ngs ] i ndi cat e t heybot h under s t ood appel l ant ’ s couns el w as ar gui ng a vi ol at i on of t he C ode due t o t he abs ence of Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on t he vi deot ape. W e fi nd t he ar gum entm ade dur i ng t he s uppr es s i on hear i ng w as su ff i ci entenough t o putt he t r i al cour ton not i ce ap p ell an t w as a rgu ing a v iolati o n o f A rt icl e 3 8
. 2 2 , S ec ti o n 3 (a)(2). 12 THE LA W R u le 3 3 .1 (a ) o f

th e T e x a s R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re p ro v id e s th a t a c o m p lain t is notpr es er ved forappea l unl es s i tw as m ade t o t he t r i al cour t “by a t i m el yr eques t , obj ect i on
orm ot i on” t hat“s t at ed t he gr ounds fort he rul i ng t hatt he compl ai ni ng par t ys oughtfr om t he t r i a l c ou r t w i t h s uf

fi c i e nt s pe c i fi c i t y t o make t he t r i a l c ou r t a w a r e of t he c ompl a i nt , un l ess t he s peci fi c gr ounds w er e appa r entfr om the co nt ext . ” L i kew i s e, underR ul e 103 of the 13Resendez — 8

14 T EX . R. E V ID . 103(a) (1). 15 Zillender v . State, 557 S.W .2d 515, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). 16 Lankston v. State, 827 S.W .2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 17 Reyna v. State, 168 S.W .3d 173, 176-77 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting1 Steven Goode, Olin Guy Wellborn I I I & M
. M i ch ae l Sharlot, T EX AS P RACT I CE : GUI DE TO THE T EX AS R UL ES OF E V I D EN CE : C IV IL AND C R I MI NAL § 103.2 (2d ed. 1993) , at 13–14). T exas R ul es of Evi dence , er r orm ay not be pr edi cat ed upon a rul i ng w hi ch admi t s orexcl udes
e v id e n c e u n les s “ a tim e ly o b jec tio n o r m o tio n to strik e a p p e a rs o f re c o rd , s tatin g th e sp e c if ic g ro u n d o f

o b je c tio n , if

th e s p e c if

ic g ro u n d w a s n o t a p p a re n t f ro m th e c o n te x t.” 14 T h e p u rpo se o f req u ir ing a sp ec ifi c o b jecti o n in the tri al co u rtis tw o fo ld: ( 1 ) t o inf o rm th e trial ju d g e o f

th e b a sis o f th e o b

jec tio n a n d g iv e h im th e o p p o rtu n ity to ru le o n it; (2 ) to gi ve oppos i ng couns el t he oppor tuni t y t o r es pond t o t he compl ai nt . A l t hough t her e ar e no 15 tec h n ica l co n sid e ra tio n s o r f o rm s o f w o rd s re q u ire d to p re se rv e a n e rro r f o r a p p e a l, a p a rty
m us tbe sp eci fi c enough s o as t o “l ett he t r i al j udge know w hathe w ant s , w hyhe t hi nks hi m s el f ent i t l ed t o i t , and do s o cl ear l y enough fort he j udge t o under s t and hi m ata t i m e w hen t he t r i al cour ti s i n a prope r pos i t i on t o do s om et hi ng abouti t . ” T he par t i es , nott he j udge, 16
ar e r es pons i bl e fort he corr ectap pl i cat i on of evi dent i ar yrul es ; i n or dert o pr es er ve a compl ai nt for appea l , t he compl ai ni ng par t ym us thave done every t hi ng nece s s ar yt o br i ng the re leva n t evid en ti aryrule a n d it s p rec ise an d p rop e r a p p lic a tion to the tr ial co u rt ’s at t ent i on. 17Resendez — 9

18 Zillender v . State, supra. 19 Lan k sto n v . Sta te

, s up ra ; see also Ex

parte Litt le, 887 S.W .2d 62, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“ It is on ly

wh e n th e nature of

a de fend ant’ s c omp la int

is unclea

r t hat w e sh ou ld c on sid e r h is objection waive d.”).

20 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.22, § 3. B utw e ca nnotcons i derj us tt he s peci fi c compl ai nti n ques t i on; w e mustal s o l ook at t he cont ext . W hen t he corr ectgr ound for excl us i on w as obvi ous t o t he j udge and oppos i ng
couns el , no for fei tur e r es ul t s fr om a gene r al ori m pr eci s e obj ect i on. B utw hen t he cont ext 18
s how s t hata par t yfai l ed t o eff ect i vel ycomm uni cat e hi s ar gum ent, then t he err orw i l l be d e e m e d f o rf e ited o n a p p e a l. 19 A N A L Y S IS

T h e M oti on s t o S u p p ress N ei t herof t he appe l l ant ’ s w ri tt en m ot i ons t o s uppr es s pr es er ved hi s A r t i cl e 38. 22
c o m p lain t f

o r a p p e a l. In th e f

irst m o tio n , th e a p p e llan t ar g u e d th a t th e v id e o tap e d sta tem e n ts “w er e t aken w i t hout t he saf eguar ds r equi r ed by and i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e 38. 22 of t he C ode
o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re .” T h is c laim is in su f f icie n t in itse lf to p re se rv e f o r a p p e a l th e sp e c if

ic argum ent that pol i ce fail ed to m em ori al i ze his Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on t ape a s r equi r ed by A rticl e 38
. 22 , S ect i on 3(a) (2)
. A rt i cl e 38
. 22 con t ai ns a nu m ber of sub sect i on s t hat could h a v e b e e n a p p lica b le to th e a p p e llan t’s v id e o tap e d sta tem e n t. T h e a p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t, 20 h o w e v e r, co n tain e d lit tle m o re th a n a c ita ti o n to th e sta tu te a n d d id n o t b rin g th e sp e c if icResendez — 10

21 See Swain v. State, 181 S
. W.3d 359, 365 (Tex. C rim. App. 2005) (holdingthat the appellant’ s argument in his mot ion to suppress, that “any statements made by [the appellant] were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and his right ag ainst self-incrimination as gua rante ed by U.S. Const. amends. V, VI , and XIV, and Te x . Const. art. I , §§ 10 and 19,” w as too g lobal in nature to p re se rv e fo r a

pp e a l th e sp e c if

ic argument t

hat th e po lic e ha d v iol ate d th e app ell ant ’s right t o counse l un d e r th e F if

th an d Si xth Amen dments b y qu e s ti o n in g h im a f ter h e a p p e ar e d b e fore the mag istrate and requeste d counsel).

22 Resende z II, supra, at 335. 23 Id. vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e 38. 22 t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s att ent i on. I n anyevent , t he t r i al cour tnever 21 rul ed o n the app el l ant’ s fi rs tm oti on t o sup press . T he app el l ant’ s seco nd m oti on t o sup press , m or eover , di d notm ent i on A r t i cl e 38. 22 at al l , i ns t ead r el y i ng excl us i vel y on cons t i tut i onal argum ents . The Suppr e s s i on H e ar i ng N o tw ith stan d ing thes e d ef ici en cies in the ap p ell an t’ s m o ti o n s to su p p ress, th e c o u rt of appe al s hel d t hat t he appel l ant al er t ed t he t r i al cour tt o hi s A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2)
c o m p lain t d u rin g th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g w h e n h e a ss e rte d th a t th e p o lice “ d id n o t Mi rand ize hi m on t he t ape. ” T he cour tof appe al s al s o hel d t hat stat em ent s byt he t r i al cour tand 22 oppos i ng couns el i ndi cat ed t hatt heybot h “under s t ood appel l ant ’ s couns el w as ar gui ng a vi ol at i on of t he C ode due t o t he abs ence of Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on t he vi deot ape. ” W e do 23 notbel i eve thatt hi s i s an ac cur at e i nt erpr et at i on of ei ther the appel l ant ’ s ar gum entort he sta tem e n ts m a d e b yth e trial c o u rt a n d o p p o sin g c o u n se l. T h re e o f o u r m o re re c e n t ca se s s u p p o rt th e c o n ten tio n th a t a c o m p lain t th a t co u ld , inResendez — 11

24 Keeter v . State, 175 S.W .3d 756, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 25 Id. at 75 9; Brady v. M

aryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1 9 6 3 ) (h o l d ing that suppression of evide nce up on re qu e st, wh e rethee vid e nc e is f avo ra bleto a n a c c us e d and mate ri a l to guil t or punis hme nt, is a violation of the DueProcess Clause of the Four teenth Amendme nt). 26 Keeter v . State, supra, at 760. 27 Id. at 760–61. iso l at i on , be r ead t o express m ore t han on e l egal argum ent w i l l gen eral l y no t pres e rv e a ll pot ent i al l yr el evantar gum ent s forappea l
. O nl yw hen t here ar e cl earcont extual cl ues i ndi cat i ng t hatt he par t yw as , i n fac t , m aki ng a par ti cu lar a r gum entw i l l t hatar gum entbe p re s e rv e d . F o r e x a m p le , i n Keet erv. St at e, t he appel l ant fi l ed a mot i on fornew t r i al i n w hi ch he s ubm i t t ed evi dence t hathe ar gued es t abl i s hed hi s inn ocenc e: an af fi davi ti n w hi ch t he
co m p lai n ing w itn ess re ca n ted h er tri al t es ti m o n y , an d an af fid av itfro m the c o m p lai n an t’ s
s t epmot her , t he out cr yw i t nes s , i n w hi ch s he s ai d t hats he had t ol d t he pr os ecut orbefor e t he trial th a t sh e d id n o t b e liev e th e c o m p lain a n t’s a lleg a tio n s. T h e a p p e llan t ar g u e d th a t it 24
s houl d have be en appa r entt hathe w as m aki ng a B r ady cl ai m beca us e i tw as “i nt er t w i ned”
w i t h t he r eca nt at i on evi dence
. W e hel d, how ever , t hat“t he fa ctual i s s ues m ayhave be en 25 i nt er t w i ned, butt he l egal i s s ues w er e not . ” B eca us e t he br oadercont extof t he mot i on and 26 hear i ng s ugges t ed t hat t he r eca nt at i on evi dence w as offe r ed t o s uppor tan ac tual
- i nnocenc e argum ent, and becau se t he ap pell ant di d n ot m enti on his B r ady cl ai m i n hi s m ot i on fornew trial o r d u rin g th e h e a rin g , h e d id n o t p re se rv e th is a rg u m e n t f o r a p p e a l. 27Resendez — 12

28 Reyna v. State, supra, at 175. 29 Id. at 175–76. 30 Id. at 179. 31 Id. (qu o t i n g Clark v. State, 881 S.W .2d 682, 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)). Si m i l ar l y , i n R e

y n a v . S ta te , t he appe l l ants oughtt o i nt r oduce e vi dence att r i al of a
v i c t i m ’ s p r i o rf

a l s e a c c u s a t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a th e w a s o f f e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e f

o r“ c r e d i b i l i t y” p u rp o s e s , n o tt o p r o v e “ t h e t ru t h o f t h e ma t t e r a s s e r t e d ” o r“ t o g o i n t o h e rs e x u a l i t y . ” On 28 appea l , he ar gued t hatt he t r i al cour t h ad erred byexcl udi ng t hi s evi dence beca us e he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o “ful l ycr os s ex am ine cri t i cal w i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o t he
a c c u s i n g wi t n e s s ” ; t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e s o l v e d t h i s i s s u e i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s f a v o r , c i t i n g t wo
c a se s re ly in g o n th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se . W e h e ld th a t, w h ile th e re f e re n c e s to th e “ tru th 29 of t he mat t eras s er t ed” a nd t he vi ct i m ’ s “s exual i t y ” cl ear l yi ndi cat ed ar gum ent s bas ed on t he R ul es of Evi dence , the ref ere n ce t o “cr edi bi l i t y ” coul d have be en a r efe r ence t o ei t hert he R ules of E vidence o r the C on front at i on C l ause. B ecause the app el l ant di d n ot “‘ cl early 30
ar t i cul at e’ t hat t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e demanded admi s s i on of t he evi dence , t he t r i al j udge ‘ne v er h ad the o p p o rtu n ityto ru le up o n this rat ion ale.’ ” 31 Fi nal l y , i n B uch an an v. State , t he appe l l ant ’ s s t at ement att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng cl os el y m i m i cked t he l anguage of C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 14. 05, w hi ch pr ovi desResendez — 13

32 Buchanan v . State, 20 7 S.W. 3d 77 2, 77 7 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 06 ); T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 14.05.

33 Bu c ha na n v . S

tate, s up ra , at 777. 34 See Davidson v. State, 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 n . 4 ( T e x . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [A r t i cl e] 38. 22 m er el ypr es cr i bes t he var i ous r equi r ement s t hatm us tbe s at i s fi ed bef or e a s t at ement m ade b ya n a c c u se d a s a re su lt o f c u sto d ial inte rro g a tio n w ill b e a d m itt e d a g a in st h im /h e r a t trial. T h a t su c h re q u ire m e n ts a re n o t m e t d o e s n o t m e a n th a t th e s tate m e n t w a s n e c e ss a rily o b t a i n e d a s a r e s u l to f

a n yl e g a l o rc o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n [
. ] ”). f o r a n o f f ice r’s rig h t to e n ter a re sid e n c e w h e n m a k in g a n a rre st w ith o u t a w a rra n t. T h is 32 C our t , how ever , hel d t hatbeca us e t he appe l l ant ’ s br oaderar g um entcent er ed on
cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , he had notpr es er ved t he A r t i cl e 14. 05 ar gum entfor appea l : “t r i al
c o u n se l’s a llu sio n s to ‘c o n se n t’ and ‘exi gen tci rc u m sta n c e s’ d o n o t n e c e ss a rilyo r e x c lu siv e ly
re f e r to C h a p ter 1 4 , so a s to m a k e it ‘o b v io u s’ th a t th e a p p e llan t w a s ra isin g it i n a d d iti o n to h is p u re ly co n s titu tio n a l c la im .” 33 T he st at ut o r ya r g u me n ta ti s s u e i n t h i s c a s e , t h e v i o l a t i o n o f Ar t i c l e 3 8
. 2 2 , Se c t i on 3( a) ( 2) , i s l egal l ydi s t i nctfr om t he cons t i tut i onal ar gum ent . E ven i f a sus pecti s gi ven Mi r anda w arn ing s and hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s have notbeen vi ol at ed, an or al confe s s i on
m ays t i l l be i nadmi s s i bl e i f t he pol i ce f ai l t o comply w it h the pur el ys t atut or yr equi r ement t hatt heycaptur e t he Mi r anda w a rn in g s o n th e e lec tro n ic re c o rd in g . T h e w o rd s “th e yd id 34
n o t Mi r andiz e hi m on the t ape, ” i n i s ol at i on, coul d i ndi cat e t hatt he appe l l antw as
com p lai ning t hat the p oli ce had no tm em ori al i zed h i s Mi r anda w ar ni ngs on vi deot ape a s
r equi r ed by A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2)
. I n cont ext , how ever , t he r ecor d s ugges t s t hatt heResendez — 14

appel l antw as us i ng t he absen ce of vi deot aped w ar ni ngs t o s how t hathe had notbeen Mi r andiz ed at al l , i n vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . A r evi ew of t he t r ans cr i pt of t he
s uppr es s i on hear i ng r evea l s t hatt he appe l l ant ’ s ar gum ent s cent er ed on w het herornott he i n t e r r o g a t i o n w a s c u s t o d i a l a n d w h e t h e rt h e a p p e l l a n tv o l u n t a r i l yw a i v e d h i s r i g h t s : “ We
w oul d cont end t hats t at ement s houl d be i nadmi s s i bl e, esse n ti al l yan i nvol unt ar ys t at ement
ora s t at ement gi ven byt he [a ppel l ant ] notunderst an d i ng cer t ai n r i ght s t hathad bee n g u ara n teed h im b o th u n d er Mi r anda and our St at e C ons t i tut i on[. ] ” H e l at ers t at ed t hatt he t a p e “ i s n o t g o i n g t o b e r e f l e c t i v e o f

a n y Mi r anda w ar ni ngs gi ven t hus far
. ” N ot hi ng i n t he appel l ant ’s a rgum entdur i ng t he hea r i ng i ndi cat es t hathe w as s peci fi cal l yr el y i ng on t he
s t atut or yr equi r ement t hat an el ectr oni c r ecor di ng of an or al confe s s i on i ncl ude a r ecor di ng of t he Mi r anda w ar ni ng i t s el f. I n l i ghtof hi s clea rl yand per s i s t ent l yar t i cul at ed
c o n stitu tio n a l ar g u m e n t, an d th e lac k o f a s ta tu to ryre f e re n c e in h is s e c o n d m o tio n to
s uppr es s , t he appe l l ant ’ s r efe r ence t o t he vi deot ape i s m os tl i kel ypar tof hi s ar gum entt hat t he pol i ce ha d vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he U ni t ed St at es and Texas C ons t i tut i ons byfai l i ng t o Mi rand ize h im a t a n yp o in t d u ri n g h is c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n . A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d of t he hea r i ng, w e ca nnothol d t hatt he t r i al cour tand oppos i ng couns el under s t ood the appe l l antt o be maki ng a cl ai m bas ed on A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2)
. I n cas es i n w hi ch w e have hel d t hatt he t r i al r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he corr ect gr ound forcompl ai ntw as obvi ous t o t he j udge and oppos i ng couns el , t h ere have be en
s t at ement s or act i ons on t he r ecor d t hatcl ear l yi ndi cat e w hatt he j udge and oppos i ng couns elResendez — 15

35 Lankston v. State, supra, at 909. 36 Id. 37 Ex parte Little, supra, at 66. under s t ood t he ar gum entt o be. I n L a n k sto n v . S ta te , fo r e x a m p le, th e a p p e llan t’s c o u n se l d id nots peci fi cal l yi dent i fyt he s t atut or ypr ovi s i on he w as r el y i ng on. T he j udge, how ever , w as 35 abl e t o i dent i fy t he pr ovi s i on: “I j us t w ant al l t he at t or ney s t o s t ayw i t hi n t he par amet er s of 38. 07. I bel i eve that ’ s w haty ou’ r e r efe r r i ng t o. ” A nd i n E x p a rte L itt le , al t hough t he 36
a p p e llan t d id n o t ex p licitlyo b jec t to a m istria l o n th e g ro u n d s o f m a n if e st n e c e ss ity , w e h e ld t hat hi s compl ai nt w as obvi ous l y cl ear t o t he t r i al cour tbeca us e, fol l ow i ng t he mi s t r i al , t he j udge perm i t t ed t he par t i es t o pr es entcas e l aw on m ani fes tnece s s i t yand t hen gr ant ed t hem t i m e t o pr epar e fora habe as corpus hear i ng. I n t hes e ca s es , i tw as app rop r i at e fort he 37 appel l at e cour tt o r eac h t he mer i t s of t he ar gum ent beca us e i t w as cl ear t hat t he t r i al cour thad
u n d e rs to o d th e a rg u m e n t a n d h a d a c h a n c e to ru le o n it a s w e ll. I n t he pr es ent cas e, t he t r i al cour ts t at ed, “I under s t and, couns el
. Y ou have made a f i ne p o int of law
. ” T h is o n lyind icates tha t th e jud g e b eli ev ed that h e u n d erstoo d the a p p ell an t’ s arg u m en t, n o t w h ich a rgu m en t h e b e lie v ed the a p p ell an t w as m ak ing
. A n d the S tat e’s
s t i pul at i on, farfr om bei ng ambi guous , actual l y poi nt s t o t he cons t i tut i onal ar gum ent : “W e
w i l l s t i pul at e now her e on t he vide o tape o f St at e’ s E xhi bi tN o. 2- A i s t her e Mi r andiz ed
w a rn in g s [ s ic ] g iv e n to [ th e a p p e lla n t] , b u t [ th e a p p e lla n t] in th e tr ia l o f E s te b a n P e re z . . .Resendez — 16

a d m itt e d th a t th e sta tem e n t g iv e n in 2 -A w a s fr e e lya n d v o lu n tar ilyg iv e n .” T h e se c o n d h a lf of t hi s s t at ement i ndi cat es t hatthe St at e w as focus i ng on cons t i tut i onal i s s ues of
v o lu n tar in e ss , w h ich h a v e n o th in g to d o w it h th e sta tu to ryre q u ire m e n t th a t Mi r anda
w ar ni ngs be captu red on t ape. T he t r i al cour tdi d nothave a fai roppor tuni t yt o rul e on a
s peci fi c A r t i cl e 38. 22 compl ai nt . T he St at e di d nothave a fai r oppor tuni t y t o oppos e s uch
a c o m p lain t. T h u s, n e ith e r o f th e tw o p u rp o se s u n d e rg ird in g o u r ru les re q u irin g sp e c if icity i n obj ect i ons
— t o m ake s ur e t hat t he t r i al j udge under s t ands w hathe i s bei ng as ked t o do, and t h a tt h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y h a s a c h a n c e t o a c tu a l l y op po se it

— i s vi ndi cat ed byal l ow i ng t he
a p p e llan t to ra ise h is s p e c if ic A rticle 3 8 .2 2 c o m p lain t o n a p p e a l. I ti s a l s o wo r t h n o t i n g t h a tt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e f i l i n g o f t h e t wo
s uppr es s i on m ot i ons and t he s ubs equent hear i ng l end cr edenc e t o t he cont ent i on that the appel l ant ’ s counsel w as notm aki ng a cl ai m bas ed on A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2) , att he
s uppr es s i on hear i ng. T he fi r s t m ot i on t o s uppr es s , w hi ch cont ai ned onl y a gener al m ent i on of A r t i cl e 38. 22, w as fi l ed b y the appe l l ant ’ s fi r s tat t or neyovera y earbefor e t he s econd
m ot i on t o s uppr es s w as fi l ed. T he s econd m ot i on t o s uppr es s , fi l ed byt he appe l l ant ’ s s econd at t or ney , r epr oduced tw o arg u m en t s m ade i n t he fi r s tm ot i on t o s uppr es s , butl eftoutt he ot her s , i ncl udi ng t he r efe r ence t o A r t i cl e 38. 22. T he hear i ng i t s el f occurr ed s hor t l y aft ert he fi l i ng of t he s econd m ot i on. I t appea r s t hat the par t i es under s t ood t hat t he p u rpo se o f t he heari ng w as t o ad dress i ssues r ai sed i n the second m oti on t o sup press . I n t he pr ese n t c as e, t her e ar e no i ndi cat i ons on t he r ecor d t o s uppor tt he cont ent i onResendez — 17

t hatt he appe l l antr ai s ed a c l ai m bas ed on A r t i cl e 38. 22, Sect i on 3( a) ( 2) , nori s t her e anyt hi ng on t he r ecor d t o s uppor t t he cont ent i on t hat t he t r i al j udge or oppos i ng couns el under s t ood t h e a p p e l l a n tt o h a v e ma d e t h i s c l a i m. CO NC L US I ON B eca us e w e conc l ude t hatt he appe l l antdi d not pr es er ve hi s A r t i cl e 38. 22 ar gum ent f o ra p p e a l , w e n e e d n o t r e a c h t h e S t a t e ’ s s e c o n d g r o u n d u p o n w h i c h w e g r a n t e d r e v i e w . We
re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a n d a f

f irm th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

D el i ver ed: O ct ober21, 2009 Publ i s hed