Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 29 , 202 2.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00480

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF D.S

.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 6

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- CJV

- 023758

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appel lant D.S. was a dju dicated as a juve nile for engaging in delinquent conduct by committing the felony offense of indecency with a child

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21. 11(a)(2). In two issues, Appellant challenges the adjudication of the of

fense an d asserts t hat (1) th e evidence is legally insufficient
to s upport the jury ’ s delinquent

- conduct finding, a nd (2) the tria l court erred in denying Appellant ’ s motion to suppress. For the reasons below, w e affirm

.2 B ACKGROUND In November 2019, 11

- year

- old Claire 1 told her mother that she had been inappropri ately touched by App ellant

. Appellant was 14 years old at the time of the incident and lived in the same n eighborhood as Claire ’ s family. Approximately one month later , two detec tive s arrived at Appel lant ’ s sch ool and interviewed him a bout the incident . Appellan t told the detectives he had inappropriately touched Claire

. The Fort Bend D i strict Attorney s ubsequ ently filed an origina l petition alleging Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct b y committi ng th e offense o f indecency with a child

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21. 11(a)(2). Appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the det ectives, asserting that the statement s were “ inv olun tary ” and “ coerced. ” The trial court h eld a hear ing and denied Appellant ’ s motio n to suppress. Appellant proceeded to trial in the summer of 2021. After two days of evidence and testimony, the jury returned a verdict finding Appel l ant engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the felony o ff ense of indecency with a child

. The trial court order ed that Appellant be committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice D ep artment. Appellant timel y appealed.
A NALYSIS In two issues, Appellant asserts (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the j ury ’ s de linquent

- conduct finding , and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress

. We ad dress these issues separ ately.

1 We refer t o the child victim by a pseudon ym. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8 ( c).3

I. Evidentiary Sufficiency
A. Standard of Review and Gover ning Law Under the Texas Family Code , juvenile justice courts have jurisdict ion over all cases involving delinquent con duct by a person who was a child at the time the person engaged in the conduct. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.0 4(a ). A “ child ” is a person who is ten years o f age or older and und er 17 years of age. Id . § 51.02( 2). Delinquent conduct is defined, among other things, as “ conduct , other than a traffic offense, that violates a penal la w of this state or of the United States punishable by imprisonment or confinement in jail. ” Id . § 51.03(a)(1). In a juve nile proce eding, the trial court must conduct an adjudication hearing for the fact finder to determine whether the juven ile engaged in delinquen t conduct. Id . § 54.03(b). If the fact finder determines that the juvenile engaged in delinquent conduct, the tria l cour t then conducts a di sposition hearing. Id

. § 54.03(h). “ Disposition is akin to sentencing and is used to honor the non

cr iminal character of the juvenile proceeding. ” In re D.L. , 541 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 20 18, no pet .). Because juv enile cases are considered “ quasi

- crimina l ” proceedings, civil and criminal rules apply at different stages of the same proceeding. In re I. F.M. , 525 S.W.3d 8 84, 886 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). The burden of proof at the adjudication hearing is the beyond

- a

- reasona ble

- doubt stand ard app licable to criminal cases. S e e Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.03(f). Accordingly , we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that a juvenile engaged i n delinque nt conduct using the standard applicable t o criminal

cases. See In re D.L. , 541 S.W.3d at 920. Under this legal

- sufficiency standard, we consider all the evidence in the4

light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether, base d o n that evi dence and the reason a ble inferences drawn therefrom, a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In re R.R. , 373 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 4th Dist.] 2012, pet. den ied ) (citing Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S . 307, 318

- 19 (1979)); see also Temple v. S t ate , 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2013). This standard applies to both direct and circumstantial evidence. In re R. R. , 373 S.W.3d at 73 5. Although we con sider every thing
p resented at trial, w e do no t sub stitute our j udgment rega rding the weight and credibility o f the evidence for that of the fact finder. In re I.F.M. , 525 S.W.3d at 887. We presume the fact finder resolved conflicting infere nces in favor of the verdict and defer to that de te rmi nation. Id

. Here, the State alle ged that Appellant engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the felony off ense of indecency with a child . We measure the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the essential e lements as defined by the hypo thetica ll y c orrect jury c harge. See Cada v. St ate , 334 S.W.3d 766, 773 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2011). A s relevant here, a person commits th e offense of inde cency with a child “ if, with a child younger than 17 years of age,

. . . th e person: (1) engages in se xu al cont ac t w ith the child or causes the child t o engage in sexual contact[.] ” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 (a)(1)

. “ Sexual contact ” includes

“ any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals o f a chi ld , ” if that touch ing is “ committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire o f any person

. ” Id . § 21.11(c)(1).
B. Evidence The jury heard testimony fro m six witnesses; we summarize the relevant portions of thei r testimony below.
Clair e ’ s fat he r ( “ Father ” ) was the first witness to testi f y. Father said he lives5

at a house i n Rosenberg with his wife and five children, includ ing Claire

. Claire is the second youngest of the fa mily ’ s children.
Father said the family met Appellant in 2018 w h e n A pp ellant “ knocked on the door and [] said he saw that we had children coming in and out of our house, could they play. ” Father said Appellant came to their ho us e approximately 6

- 7 times before the underlying incident occurred

. Father said Appe llan t a l so pl ayed on his ol der son ’ s basketball team and recalled that his wife would “ transport [] the bo ys for these practices and games. ” Father described Appellant as “ high energy ” and “ dominant. ” Fa ther said Appellant “ was very aggressive with being

— you k n o w, pl aying with all the toys first and kind of dominating in that aspect but he was frie ndly. ” Father recalled that Appellant “ felt very comfortable in ou r home. ” Father said Appellant primarily played with Claire and their youngest son.
F ather de s cri be d Cl aire as “ very friendly , [] very la id back, [a nd] highl y intelligent. ” Father said Claire ha d been diagnose d with autism but agreed that the diagnosis did not affect her academically. According to Father, Claire did not have

as many friends as many of t he other children but she considered Appellant a f riend.
Father said the incident in question o ccurred on November 25, 2019 , when Claire was 11 years old

. On that day, Father said his wife drove Appel lant a nd one of their so ns back to t he house afte r bask etball practice. Father recalled s e eing Appellant go upstairs with the other children to the game room, which is where the children “ pr imarily played. ” Father said he had a motion

- activated camera in the
game ro om

. Admitted into eviden ce was footag e from the game room camera recorded6

on No vember 25, 2019. On the footage, Appellant is seen sitting next to Claire on the sofa. At one point , Appellant briefly touches Claire ’ s hands, which were folded in h er lap.
The camera footage then sh ows Appellant a nd C laire downstairs ; Appellant tells Cl aire “ let ’ s go play over there ” and points to the dining room. Claire picks
up a laptop and follows Appellant into the dining room. According to Fathe r, the dining room is not a location where the ch ildren usua ll y play and does not have
any cameras.
Fat her said he was in the downstairs bedroom with his wife when Claire came in appearing “ emotional and distraught. ” Fathe r ga ve Claire “ some time alon e wi th her mo ther to talk to her ” while he went to ta lk to Appe llant. Accor di ng
t o Father, he thought Clai re may have been upset because Appellant was “ taking

ove r the game stuff agai n ” or because she “ saw something in appropriate on the computer. ”
Wh ile Father was talking to Appellant, he received a te xt m essage from mother “ sayi ng tha t [Appellant] needs to le a ve. ” Father recalled telling Appellant

“ you ’ ve got to go ” and Appellant left shortly thereafter

. Father described this behavior as “ atypical ” becau se “ with [Appellant], it ’ s d ifficult to get him to leave. ” Ac cording to Fa th er, this was th e first time A ppellant did not try to stay at the house for longe r

. Fat her said Appellant made “ a beeline for the door ” and left the ho us e without putting on his socks and shoes , instead carrying them in his hands. Father al so recalled t ha t Ap pel la nt forgot to take hi s game system with him when he left

. Father went ba ck inside t he house to talk to his wife and learned “ something had happened ” to Claire

. Father said he and hi s wife went to Appel lant ’ s house shortly thereafter to tell Appe ll ant ’ s pa rents “ what their son d id, and that he ’ s to7

never step foot in my h ouse again

. ” Father met with Appellant ’ s mother and told her that Appellant had “ touched [his] daughter inappropriately ” and that he was not allowed to come ov er t o the house aga in

. Father said he and his wi fe did not call the police to report the incid ent. Fath er said Appellant ’ s mother reported the incident to the police shortl y after their visit with her.
Claire was the second witness to testify at trial

. Clair e said sh e wa s 12 y ears old at the time of t rial and was 11 years old at the t im e of the No v ember 2019 incident w ith A ppel lant

. Discussing the day the incident occurred , Claire said Appellant had come over to her family ’ s ho use and was playing with he r in the upstairs g ame room. Claire said she wa s sitting on the sofa with Appe llant when he “ asked to put his hand on [her] lap. ” When asked to show the jury “ where [her] lap is, ” Claire pointed to her t high area. Claire said Appellant then “ used his hand
t o bring [her] h and to his lap. ”
Claire rec alled that she a nd Appellant subsequently moved to the downstairs dining room to play on the computer. Claire said she and Appellant were sitting on chairs next to each other when Appellant asked he r “ to get clo ser. ” Claire s aid Appel lant then “ s queezed [her] bre asts with his hand. ” After he touched her brea sts, Claire recalled that Appellant “ also touched [her ] in a differe nt way. It was, like, over [her] pants, but he got, like, sort o f

— like, where the pan ts start to

s pl it i n the middle

. ” When aske d to furt her de scribe the area that Appellan t touched, Claire said: “ [I] t wasn ’ t exactly touching my private part, but it was near
my vagina and ki nd of on the inside of my thighs. ”

A fter the encounter, Claire s aid Appellant t old her “ not to tell an y one. ” Claire said she felt “ unco mfortable ” and went to her parents ’ bedroom. Claire said she lay on their bed and started crying “ [ b]ecause of all the stuff that was8

happen ing. ” Claire recalled telling her parents what had happ en ed b etwe en he r and Appellant.
Claire also was questioned about other in teractions with Appellant that occurred before the November 2019 incident a t her house

. 2 Describing the first i nteraction , Claire said sh e was traveling in her mother ’ s car with Ap pe llan t and two of her b rothers when Appellant passed her a note that said, “ Tell me if it feels good. ” Afterwards, Claire said Appellant “ squeezed [her] breasts but in a way

w hich n o one else saw. ” On another occasion , Claire said Appellant as ke d her

“ w he n [s he] started puberty. ” The third witness to testify was Christina Henriquez, a forensic interview er

a t Child Advocates of Fort Bend. Henriquez said her work at C h ild Adv ocates inv olved pr ovid ing services to “ children who ha v e made an ou tcry of so me sor t of abuse. ” Henriquez said she interviewed Claire in December 2019, approximately two weeks after the inci dent with Appellant

. Henri quez said Claire “ wa s consistent ” throughout the interview and provided appropriat e responses to the questions she w as a sked . Henriquez said Cla ire completed an “ anatomical drawing ” during the interview , which Henri quez describ ed as a pr ocedure used “ to clari fy any body parts that the child has mentioned during the interview. ” The anatomical drawing com pleted by Cla ir e wa s admitted into evidence and showed circles drawn on the breast, thigh, and vaginal areas. Finally, the jury heard from Detective S urratt, the i nvestigator assigned to Claire ’ s case. After the incident was report ed, Detective Surratt said he m et w it h

2 Before this testimony was elicited, the trial court held a hea rin g outside the presence of the jury and determined that the evidence was adequate to support a find ing by th e jury that Appe l lant committed the separate of fenses beyond a reasonable d o ubt. S ee Tex. Code Crim

. Proc. Ann. art. 38.3 7, § 2

- a (procedures gov erning evidence of extraneous offenses or acts).9

Cl aire ’ s parents. Detectiv e Surratt said Claire ’ s parents consented to a forensic interview and Claire was interviewed b y Henri quez. Ac cording to Detective Surratt, he remained in a room adjacent to t he interview room and watched the int ervi ew via a li ve r ecording. Detective Surr att said Claire ’ s description of the incident was “ consistent [with] what ha d been reported to [him] previously b y the parents. ”

De tective Surratt said the next step in h is investigation was to interview Appellan t. Detective S urra tt met with Appellant on December 19, 2019, at Appel lant ’ s school ; the interview was co nducted in the school resource officer ’ s office. The intervi ew was v ideotaped and the footage was a dmitted into evidence.
At the begin ning of the i nterview, Det ec ti ve Surratt read s Appellant a form entitled “ Voluntary Statement of Juvenile Not In Custody

. ” The form state s that Appellant i s not in custody or under a rrest, that Appellant ’ s statement i s given voluntarily, and that the statement may be used as part of a c ri minal investigation. T he form also state s tha t Appellant has the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and the right to terminate the in terview at an y time. A fter Detectiv e Surratt read Appel lant the rights delineated on the form, App el lant s igned and dated the for m.
Detective Surratt then ask ed Appellant to “ tell me what you thin k this is about. ” In response, Appellant said he “ recently .

. . touched a little girl ” who h e identified as Claire

. Cont inuing on, Appellant said he touc he d he r “ privates ” and her “ bre ast over he r shirt. ” Appellant also said he “ tried to put [his] hands in her pants. ” When asked why he did it, Appe llant responded “ I don ’ t know. ”
C. Applica ti on
Th is testimony and evidence, co nsidered in the li ght most fa vo ra ble to th e10

verdict, is legall y sufficient to support the jury ’ s delinquent

- conduct finding. Specifically, the evidence supports the finding that Appellant engaged in sexual contact with Claire , a child younger than 17 years of age. See Tex

. Penal Code An n. § 21.11(a)(1), (c)(1).
As discussed above, Claire test ified that Appellant “ squeezed [her] breasts with his hand ” and touche d her “ near [her] vagina and kind of on the inside of [her] thighs. ” The evidence also sho wed that Claire reporte d the inciden t to h er parents shortly after it occurred. Therefore , Claire ’ s testimony is legally sufficient evidence to support the jury ’ s delinquent

- conduct finding. See Tex. Code Crim

. P r oc. Ann. art. 38.07 (stating that a conviction under chapter 21 “ is suppo rtable on the u ncor roborat ed testim ony of the victim of the sexual offense if th e victim informed any person .

. . of the alleged offense within on e year after the date on which the o ffense is alleged to have occurred ” ); see also Romano v. State , 612 S.W.3 d 151, 158 (T ex . Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref ’ d) ( “ The uncorroborated testimony of the child can support a conviction fo r indecency with a child. ” ).
Moreover, Claire ’ s account was corroborated by other evidence. T he

a natomic al drawing admitted during H enri qu ez ’s testimony showe d that Claire had drawn circles on the figure ’ s breast, thigh, and vaginal areas during her forensic interview. Henriquez also said Claire was consisten t throughout the interview and provided appropriate responses to the questions sh e wa s asked.
Th e game room camera footage admitted during Father ’ s testimony showed Appellant touching Claire ’ s hands in her lap while they were seat e d on the sofa in the game room ; the footage later showed Appel lant and Claire g oing into the dining room, wh ere Claire alleged t he inappropriate touching occurred. Acc ording to Father, the same day the footage was cap tured Claire came into her parents ’11

bed r o om “ emotional and distraught

. ” Father said he and hi s wife went to Appellant ’ s ho use sho r tly thereafte r and told Appellant ’ s mother that Appellant had “ touched [his] daughter inappropriately

. ” Finally, the jury also saw the video footag e from Appellant ’ s interview with Detective Sur ratt. During the interview , Appellant told Detective Surratt that he

“ touc he d a litt le girl ” on her “ privates ” and “ breast. ” Appellant identified the

“ little girl ” as Claire

. Considered tog ether, this evidence is legal ly sufficient to support the jury ’s delinquent

- conduct finding. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.1 1(a)(1), (c)( 1)

. W e overrule Appel lant ’ s first issue.
II. Motion to S u ppress
A. Standard of Re view and Gover ning Law
A trial court ’ s ruling on a mot ion to suppress is r eviewed under a bifurcated standard

. Martin v. State , 620 S.W.3d 749, 759 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2021) . We give

a l most total deferenc e to the tri al court ’ s determination of historical facts and to the trial court ’ s application of law to fact questions th at tur n upon credibility and demeanor. Alford v. State , 358 S.W.3d 647, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This deferent i al st a ndard similar ly applies when the trial court ’ s determinations are based on a reco rding admitted into evidence at a supp res sion hearing. See Montanez v. State , 19 5 S.W.3d 101, 109 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2006) ; Matthews v. State , 513 S.W.3d 45 , 62 (Tex. Ap p

. — Hou ston [14th Dis t.] 2016, pet. ref ’ d). Appellant a rgues on appeal tha t the recorded statement made during his interview wit h Detective Surrat t was involun tary. 3 A statement is involuntary if

3 The Texas Family Code prescribes certain procedu res that must be foll owed when a juvenile ’ s statement is procured during a custo d ial interrogation. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.095 (admissibility of a statement of a child). But here, Appellant did not argue in the trial12

there was “ official, coercive conduct of such a nature tha t any statement obta ined thereby was unlikely to have been the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its mak er. ” Alvarad o v. State , 912 S.W. 2d 199, 211 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1995) (en banc) ; see also Herring v. State , 359 S.W.3d 275 , 28 0

- 81 (Tex. Ap p.

—

Tex arka na 2012 ), aff’d , 395 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Meadoux v. S tate , 307 S.W.3d 401 , 412 (Tex. App.

— San A ntonio 20 09) , aff ’ d , 325 S. W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2010). When voluntariness is challenged by the defendant, the S tate b ears the burd en of prov ing by a prepondera nce of the evidence that the statement was given voluntarily. Alvarado , 912 S.W.2d at 211.
In det ermining the volun tariness of the con fession, the trial court examines the totality of the circumstances. Herring , 35 9 S.W.3d at 281

. T he trial court is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence and the trial court ’ s finding on volunta riness may not be dis turbed absen t an abuse of d iscretion. Meadoux , 307 S.W .3d at 412

. B. Evidence For our analysis of t his issue , we c onsi der only the evidence admitted at the
p retrial hearing on Appellant ’ s motion to suppress. See, e.g. , Hardesty v. State , 667 S.W.2d 130, 133 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1984) (en banc).
Detective Surratt was the first witness to testify at the hearing. Detec tive Surratt said he met with Appellant on December 19, 2019 , at the alternative

court or on appeal that his sta tement wa s the produc t of a custodial interrogation o r t hat section 51.095 ’ s procedu r es were not followed. Ther efore , we analyze Appellant ’ s sole argument on this point: that his statement was invol untary. See, e.g. , Herring v. S t ate , 359 S.W.3d 275, 27 8

- 283 (Te x. App.

— Texa rkan a 2012), aff ’ d , 395 S .W.3d 161 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2013) (unde r taking separate analyses to determine whether the juveni le ’ s statement was (1) procured in violation of section 51.095 , or (2) invo luntary) ; see also Meadoux v. S t ate , 307 S.W.3d 4 01, 408 (Tex

. Ap p

. — San Antonio 2009 ), aff ’ d , 32 5 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2010) ( “ A voluntary oral statement by a juvenile that does not stem from custodial interrogation is admissible, even if the juvenile did not receive the statutory adm onis hments. ” )

.13

learning center where Appellant attended s chool. Det ective Surratt met with Appella nt in the s chool resou rce officer ’ s office. According to Detective Surr att, before t h e int ervi ew began , App ellant signed and dated a form entitled “ Volu ntar y Statement of Ju venile Not I n Custod y. ” The signed form was admitted into evidence and included the following admonishments in its first paragraph :

• “ I, [ Appellant ], am no t u nder arres t. In ot her words, I understand that I am free to leave at any time. ”

• “ Thi s statement is g iven voluntarily and I have not been p romised anything i n return for this statement, have not been intim idated , forced, or threatened in any way to give th is stateme nt. ”

• “ I u nderstand that this statement is to be used by Detective Su rratt as part of a criminal investigation. ”

• “ I understand that I m ay no w , or as a re sul t of the following statement, be considered a suspect in the investigation. ”
The form also sh ows that Appe llan t initial ed next to each of th e following individual statements:

• “ I have been read the following rights, understand them, and intelligently and voluntaril y waive them. ”

• “ You have the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all
an d any stat emen t you make may be used as evidence against you. ”

• “ You have the right to have an attorney present to advise you either prior t o any questioning or during a ny questioning. ”

• “ If you are unable to employ an attorney, you have the right to have
an attorney appo in ted to counsel with you prior to or during any interviews with peace o fficers or attorneys representing the state. ”

• “ Yo u have the right to terminate this interview at any time. ”
Detective Surratt testified that he did not coerce or t hre aten Appel la nt o r pr omise him anything during the course of the interview

. Describi n g Appellant ’ s demeanor

as “ understand ing [and] calm , ” Detective Surratt recalled that Appellant “ spoke14

in telligently with me. ” Detective Surratt said Detective Rogers als o was pres ent du ri ng the interview, but only observed the interview and did not participate in any
way. At this point, the State admitted into evidence the video footage from Appellant ’ s intervie w with Detective Surratt. The footage shows Appellant wa lk i n to the offi ce a nd sit at a desk across from Detecti ve Surratt. The school resource officer also joins them during the interview bef or e leavi ng the office shortly thereaf ter

. Detective Su rratt begins by intro ducing himse lf to Appellant and say ing

“ you a nd I will be ta l ki ng today .

. . about an investigation your name came up in. ” Appellant responds: “ I think I already know what the investig ation is. ” Detective S u rratt tells App ellant “ let me read this to you before we start talking. ”

D e tective Surra tt proceeds to r ea d Appellant the a dmonishments contained on the “ Voluntary Statement of Juvenile Not In Custody Form. ” Appellant appe ars
to understand th e content of the fo rm and provides the spelling of his parents ’ names and information ab out two recen t visi ts he ha d wi th C hild Protecti ve Services. Appellant also asks Detective Surratt to clarify one of the admonishments. During this stage of the interview, the school resource officer returns to the office; Appellant expresses that he wou ld prefer if sh e did not rem a in in the room during the interview.
After the school resource officer leaves the room, Appellant tells Detective Surratt th at he “ recently touched a little girl ” and “ CP S came to investigate. ” Appellant ex plains how he know s Claire a nd her family and s ay s he did “ not kno w why ” it happened. When asked “ where ” he touched Claire , Appellant says “ her privates and her b reast. ” Appellant clarifie s that he never touched Claire undern eath her clothes.15

When asked about the “ reaso n ” he did thi s, Appellant re s po nd s with “ I don ’ t know ” before t elling Detective Surratt that he also had been inappropriately touched sever al years pr eviously by one of his parents ’ friends. Appellant also tells Detective Surratt that he is currently see i ng a th erapis t. The intervi e w last s for approximately 20 min ut es ; at its conclusion, Appellant asks Detective Surratt for his card. Througho ut the interview, Appellant does not appear anxious or distressed ; Appellant appears relaxed and freely respond s to Detective S urratt ’ s quest i on s

. Detective Surratt does not raise his voice or threaten Appellant during the interview

. On cross

- examinatio n, Detective Surratt testified that he did not reach out to Appellant ’ s parents before undertaking his inte rview with Appellan t . Detective S u rr att said he did not look into Appellant ’ s “ intellectual ability ” nor did he inquire as to why Appellant attended school at an a lternative learning center. Detective Surratt said he did not investigate whether Appellant was t aking any me d ication s at the t i me of the interview. D etective Surratt acknowledged that both he and Detective Rogers were in uniform and carryi ng handguns. Appel lant ’ s father was the second witness to testify at the hearing. According to Appel lant ’ s fa the r, at the tim e of the interv i e w Appellant had been
at tending the altern ative learning center for six years because of “ behavioral issues. ” Ap p ellant ’ s father said Appellant is “ very poli te, he ’ s very intelligent, but he is social ly delayed.

. . . [H]e ha s an inabilit y to sit still w i thout medication, severe focusing issues. ” Appellant ’ s father said Appel lant takes mood enhancers , depression me dication, and medication for ADHD.16

C. A p plication Considering the record as a whole, the total ity o f the circumst ances support s the trial cou r t ’ s finding that Appellant ’ s statement s to Detective Surratt were voluntary. See Alvarado , 912 S.W.2d at 211 ; Her ring , 359 S.W.3d at 281

. First, Appellant reviewed and signed the “ Volu ntar y Statement of Ju venile Not I n Custod y ” form. The f orm included m u l tiple admonishments regarding Appellant ’ s right s , including his right to term inate the interview at any time. T h e interview f

ootage admitted into evidence sho ws Detecti ve Surratt read ing each admonishment to Appellant befor e Appellant ini tials next to t h e m. Appellant
appe ars to understand th e admonishments and , at one point, asks Detective Surr att for a clarif

icati on. This evidence supports the trial court ’ s finding that Appell ant ’ s
stat ements to Detective Surratt were volun tary. See, e .g. , J enkins v. S tate , 912 S.W. 2d 793, 807 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1993) (en banc) ( the trial court ’ s finding that the appellant ’ s statem ent was voluntary was su pported by sufficient evidence showing that “ appellant was informed of his rights , he und erstood th em, he knowingly w a i ved them, and he voluntarily confessed ” ). Second, the video footage of the interview does not show Detective Su rratt threat ening or coercing Appellant in any way. Appellant appears at ease during the interview; he freely an swers the que stions posed to h im and, at several points , volunteers additional information. Appellant does not appear frightened or forced to d is close information. Finally, although Appellant attended school at an alternative education center, his father testified th at he is “ very p oli te ” and “ very intelligent

. ” This description is reflected in Appellant ’ s interview with D etective Surratt : Ap pellant appears to understand the purpose of the interview and the questions he is asked and provides appropriate resp onses.17

Based on the r ecord, we conclude tha t the trial court did not (1) abuse its discretion in finding that Appellan t ’ s sta tements to Det ective Surratt were voluntary , and (2) err in denying Appellant ’ s motion to suppress

. See Martin , 620 S.W.3d at 759 ; Mead oux , 307 S.W .3d at 412

. We overrule Appellant ’ s second is sue.
C O NCLUSION
W e affirm the trial cou rt ’ s judg ment.

/s/ Meagan Hassan J ustice

P a nel co ns ists of C h i ef Justice Christopher an d Justices Wise and H assan

.