### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00202- CR

Ro be r t S ain t J am e s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30401 12, H ONO RAB LE WILF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The jury convicted appellant Robert Saint James of the offe nse of felony murder. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 1 9. 02 (b )(3) (W est 20 03). Pun ish me nt w a s a sse sse d at f if ty y e a rs ’
c on fi ne me nt. I n f

ive iss ue s o n a

pp e a l, S a int

Jame s c ha llenges th e di st ri c t c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion to s up pr e ss h is c on fe ssi on and a sse rt s in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. We wi ll a ff

ir m.
BACK GR OUND The jury hear d evidenc e that, betwe en 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. on Nove mber 20, 1982, the body of 20-y ear -old Dallas r esident Mar k Doug herty

was found along I H-35 ne ar the Slaughte r Creek ove rpass in Austin. Police office rs who discovere d Doug herty testified that he wa s bloodied and bar ely

alive when they found hi m, and that he wa s ultim ately “pronounc ed dea d on the sce ne.”2

One of the office rs testified that Doug herty was found c overe d in “scrub- ty pe brush” that indicated to him t h at s omeone ha d tried to hide the body . An autopsy reve aled that Doug herty died from massive loss of blood from stab wounds to his neck.

During their investig ation into Doughe rty ’s deat h , p o l i ce be g an looking for Saint J ames a nd Don B ouldrey , two individuals who alleg edly wer e supposed to meet with Doug herty on the nig ht he was murde red. O fficer s first interviewe d Bouldre y , but determined that they lacke d

“ e no ug h p ro ba

ble c a us e ” to a rr e st h im. Serg eant J err

y Fe arn of the Austin Police Depa rtment testified that, on Dec ember 3, 1982, he re ceive d a phone call from Saint James, who volunteere d that “our inve stigation was g oing in the wrongdirec tion, that we wer e looking for the w rong people a nd that he co u l d s t raig hten us up.” Saint J ames then asked to meet with Fe arn at a re staurant the ne x t morning “ to give his version of what happene d.” F ear

n testified that Saint J ames refused to meet with him at the police station. F e arn e xpla ine d th a t, w he n h e me t w ith Sa int Jame s the ne xt day , Sa int Jame s to ld him that “he wa s a broke r. He put people tog ether and admitted that normally these c ontacts that he
arr ang ed were for drug deals.” Fea rn testified that Saint J ames a lso told hi m that “Don B ouldrey was wanting to expand his business as a drug deale r” and that Bouldre y “wa s trying to put toge ther a deal wi th M ark

Do ug he rt

y ” and “ Do ug he rt

y wa s supp os e d to be co min g to Aus tin to b uy dr ug s f or his customers in Da llas.” Saint J ames went on to tell Fe arn that Doug herty had planned on flying f rom Dallas to Austin and mee ting Saint J ames at the airport, but that the m eeting never happene d. Saint J ames also told F ear

n that he had be en at his g irlfriend’ s house the nig ht of the murder , and that he had lea rned f rom Bouldr ey

the next day

that Doug herty

h ad b een mur dere d. Fe arn te stified that3

when he asked Saint James if he thoug ht Bouldre y h ad b een involved in the murder, Saint J ames responde d that “Don wa sn’t the kind of per son that could do something like that.”

On De c e mbe r 2 1, 19 82 , Ser g e ant F e arn wa s c on ta c te d a

se c on d ti me by

Sa int Jame s. This time Saint J ames told Fe arn “ that he h ad b ee n o ut investigating this murder and had a ll the information and e vidence that we ne eded to a rre st, indict and pro s ec u t e Do n Bouldre y for Ma rk Doug herty ’s murder .” This evidenc e supposedly included a knife that was the murde r we apon and a bloody boot that belong ed to B ouldrey . Fe arn te stified that Saint J ames wa nted to be paid $5,000 for this evidenc e. Be lieving that this “ evidenc e” would probably be inadmissible at trial, Serg eant Fe arn de clined the of

fer . Fe arn tes t ified that, on De cembe r 23, Saint J ames c alled him ag ain and asked f or the phone number of D oug herty ’s father. I t appea red to F ear

n t h at S ai n t J ames was interested in se lling the e vidence to Doug herty ’s family
. Fe arn did not g ive Saint J ames the f amily ’s phone number. This was the last time Fe arn had contac t with Saint J ames. Af ter that, infor

mation about Doug herty ’s murder “ce ase[d] to come in” and the c ase, a lthough ne ver c losed, was se t aside.

I n 1986, Detec tive Dusty Hesskew , who had assisted with the murde r investig ation in 1982, decided to f

ollow up on some leads. Hesskew ran a criminal hi story chec k on Saint J ames
and dis c ov e re d th a t he wa s in a pe nit e nti ary in Color a do . H e ssk e w t e sti fi e d th a t he sp ok e wi th Gre g ory Booda kian, a c ounselor at the Colorado Department of Correc tions, who t old him that Saint J ames ha d been ta lking to him about Dougher ty ’s m urder
. Booda

kian t ook a tape d statement fr om Sa int Jame s, tr ans c ri be d it , a

nd se nt i t to He ssk e w. I n th e state men t, S ain t Jame s e xpla ine d h is version of the events surr ounding D oug h er ty ’s murder , g iving a “ver y g raphic descr iption of the4

c ri me sc e ne ” and

a c kn ow le dg ingthat he wa s p re se nt w he n th e c ri me oc c ur re d. I n th e state me nt, Saint James also admitted to a ssisti ng Bouldre y in hiding some of the evidenc e re lated to the murde r. Ba sed on the c ontents of this statement, Hesskew “put the ca se tog ether

and . . . prese nted it to the District Attorney ’s Off

ice f or their r evie w. ” Hesskew thought he had enoug h information to “g et the ca se bef

ore a g rand jury .” He sskew did not know what ha ppened to the c ase a fter he turned the evidenc e over

to the district attorney ’s offic e. I t is undisput ed that the district attorne y ’s offic e decide d not to prosecute the case at that time.

Th e c a se wa s late r r e vie we d in 20 01 by the Au sti n Po lic e De pa

rtme nt’ s c old

c a se
un it. De te c tiv e Ric k B la c kmo re e xami ne d Sa int Jame s’ s 1 98 6 s ta te me nt a nd be g an lo ok ingfo r h im. He f ound Saint J ames in Arizona. Detec tive Donald By ers, a police detective with the C ity of Mesa , Arizona, was a sked by

Black m o re t o speak w ith Saint J ames a bout Doug herty ’s murder . By ers asked Saint James to come into the Mesa police station and make a statement, which he did on De c e mbe r 1 5, 20 02 . T he state me nt w a s r e c or de d an d sen t to Au sti n. B a se d o n th e inf or ma tio n in the statement, De tective B lackmore decide d to go to Ar izona and interview Saint James himself.

De t ec t i v e B l ac km o re an d

h i s p ar t n er

De t ec t i v e Ha

rdesty first interviewe d Saint J ames on Fe bruar

y 12, 2003. Bla ckmore testified that Saint J ames “ voluntarily came to the Mesa, Ar izona Police Depa

rtment” and g ave a statement about his involveme nt in the murder. The meeting lasted “about s ev en-a

nd-a- half hours.” Bla ckmore testified that, althoug h there wer e some diff ere nces be tw e e n Sa int

Jame s’ s st a te me nt t o D e te c tiv e s B la c kmo re and Ha rd e sty and his 19 86 state me nt t o Booda kian, “I t was still a relatively consistent story

in that he was ne g otiating the sale of this MDA5

product or love drug that he and Mr. Bouldrey had begun producing and was trying to neg otiate that sale to Mr. Doug herty .” When aske d about the inconsistencie s i n t h e statements, B lackmore testified: A lot of it involved—from my perspe ctive, a lot of it i nvolved the discussion betwe en Mr. B ouldrey

and Mr. Saint J ames. And at some point on the first day Mr. Saint J ames to l d u s that Mr. Bouldr ey told Saint J ames that he was g oing to g et Mark’ s mon e y . A nd

that be g an s ound ingmor e to me as th ou g h th e y int e nd e d to ro b h im. The first day

Mr. Saint J ames c ontinued to deny that. But a s Isaid befor e, I felt like and De te c tiv e Ha

rd e sty bo th f e lt that he wa s mi nim izin g his inv olv e me nt.
Bla ckmore and Ha

r d e s ty r e q u e s te d a s e c o n d interview w ith Saint J ames the f ollowing day . Saint J ames a g ree d. Bla ckmore testified t hat during t he sec ond interview on F ebrua ry 13, Saint Jame s to ld t

he m th a t: [H] e ac tually

had pre planned the r obbery with Mr. Bouldre y . He had knowledg e that it was g oing to be a robbe ry and that he a ctually instructed Mr. Bouldre y to strike Mr. Do ug he rt y on the he a d wi th his mot or c y c le he lme t. Th e int e nt wa s to kn oc k h im o ut, take his money

and lea ve him on the side of the r oad.
Saint J ames’s confession was videotaped and reduced to written form. Afte r taking the state me nt, De te c tiv e s B la c kmo re and Ha rd e sty re tur

ne d to Au sti n a

nd c on tin ue d to inv e sti g a te the mur de r. B la c kmo re te sti fi e d th a t th e inv e sti g a tio n in to B ou ldr e y ’s inv olv e me nt w a s st ill
o n go i n g. On

Ap ri l 16 , 2 00 4, Sa int Jame s wa s ind ic te d fo r Do ug he rt y ’s mur de r, c omm itt e d in t h e c o u r s e o f

r o b b e r y. T h e j u r

y w a s i n s t r

u c t e d o n t h e l aw o f p art i e s an d f o u n d S a i n tJ a m e s g u i l t y, assessing punishment at fifty y ear s’ conf

inement and a

fine of $5,000. T his appea l followed.See M iranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 6 DI SCU SSIO N M ot ion to suppr e ss

I n h is f ir st i ssu e , Sa int

Jame s c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis
m o t i o nt o s u

p p r e s s h i s F e b r

u ar y 1 2 an d 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 s t a t e m e n t s t o D e t e c t i v e s B l a c km o r e an d H ar d e s t y. I n his moti on to suppress, Saint J ames a sserted th at h i s “conf ession cannot be considere d truly

voluntary

beca use he w as not informed of hi s ri g ht to have an attorney prese nt during the interrog ation as per Miranda .” Af te r h old inga

he ari ngon

Sa int J ame s’ s mo tio n to 1 suppress, the district court disag ree d, finding that Saint James “voluntarily came to the Fe bruar

y 12, 2003, interview a

nd ag ree d to return on F ebrua ry 13, 2003, to summarize and reduc e to writing the
su bs tanc e of

the int e rv ie w. ” Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ma de the fo llo wi ngfi nd ing s: At all times during the interview on F ebrua ry 12-13, 2003, the d ef

en d an t was not under a rre st and was f

ree to leave. The de fenda

nt free ly and voluntarily

made the e lectronic ally

rec orded a

nd written state me nt. The e lectronic all y rec orded a nd written statement we re [sic] not t he re sult of custodial interrog ation. We apply a bifurca ted standard of revie w to an orde r g ranting or deny ing a motion to suppress, g iving a lmost t otal defe renc e to a tria l court’s de termination of historical f ac t s and
re v i ew i n g de novo the court’s a pplication of the law
. Ma x we ll v . S tat e , 7 3 S. W. 3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Car

mo uc he v . S

tat e , 10 S.W .3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The districtT h e “ qu e s t i o n - f i r s t ” i n t e r r o g a t i o nt a c t i c i n v o l v e s s u c c e s s i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n s o f

a s u s p e c t, 2 bo th b e fo re and

a ft e r w arn inghim

of his Miranda r ig hts. Mi ss ou ri v. Se ibe rt , 542 U.S. 600, 609 (2004). Only af

t er a conf ession is obtained are the Miranda war nings g iven, and then the office r as k s t h e s uspect to re peat his conf ession, in the belief that the incriminating statements g iven subsequent to the Miranda war nings w ill be admissible. Se e id . at 609-10.

7 c o u rti s t h e s o l e j u d g e o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s an d

t h e w e i g h tt o b e g i v e nt h e i r t e s t i m o n y, and it may

choose to be lieve or disbelieve any or all of a w itness’s testimony
. Lan e yv . S tat e , 117 S
. W
. 3 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 7 ( T e x. C r i m . A pp . 2 00 3) ; W oo d v . S tat e , 18 S.W .3d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00 ); Al v arad o v . S tat e , 8 53 S.W. 2d

17 , 2 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Al lri dg e v . S tat e , 850 S.W .2d 471, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

S ai n t J am es asserts that his Febr uary 12 and 13 stateme nts should have bee n suppressed be cause they

wer e the r es ult of an impermissible “question-f irst” interrog ation tactic. 2 Saint J ames c ompare s his statements to the statements made by the def endant in Mi

sso ur i v . S

e ibe rt , 5 4 2 U. S
. 600 (2004). In Se ibe rt , the suspect wa s taken to the police station and left alone in an in te r v ie w r o o m f

o r 1 5 to 2 0 mi n u te s. Id
. a t 6 0 4
. W i t h o u tgi v i n g Miranda war nings, a n office r
e nte re d th e ro om a

nd qu e sti on e d Se ibe rt

fo r 3 0 to 40 min

ute s— “ sq ue e zing he r arm ” in the pr oc e ss— and eve ntually

obtained a c onfession. Id . at 605. The of fice r then left the inter

view room, re turned 20 minutes later with a tape rec order , g ave Seibe rt the Miranda wa rn ing s, and

be g an a sk inghe r t o repe at the same information she ha d previously told th e o fficer. Id . Co nc lud ingthat th is

“ qu e sti on -f

ir st t a c tic e ff

e c tiv e ly thr e a te ns to thwar t Miranda ’s purp os e of re du c ingthe ri sk

that a
coer ced con fe ssi on

wo uld be a dmi tte d, ” the Sup re me Cou rt he ld t hat Se ibe rt ’s po st-

Miranda statements wer e inadmissible. Id . at 617.8 Th is c a se is d ist inguis ha

ble fr om Se ibe rt , primarily beca use the statements obtained by Detec tives Blac kmore an d Har desty on Fe bruar

y 12 and 13 we re not the pr oduct of c ustodial interrog ation. The re quirem en ts of Miranda apply only to statements made dur ing c ustodial interrog ation. See M

iranda v. Arizona , 3 84 U. S. a t 47 8 (v olu nte e re d s ta te me nts no t ba rr e d b y F if th Amendment); Te x . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt
. 3 8
. 2 2, § 5 (statute does not pre clude a dmission of statement that does not stem fr om custodial interrog ation)

A per son is in custody if, under the totality of the c ircumstance s, a re asonable person
wo uld be lie ve his fr e e do m of

mov e me nt w a s re str a ine d to the de g re e a sso c ia te d w itha fo rm a l arr e st. Sta ns bu ry v . Ca lif

or nia , 5 11 U. S. 3 18 , 3 22 (1 99 4) ; Do wth itt v . S tat e , 9 3 1 S. W. 2 d

2 4 4 , 2 5 4 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Ho us ton v . S tat e , 185 S.W .3d 917, 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2 0 0 6 , p et. re f’d)
. The initial determination of c ustody depends on the obj ective c ircumstance s of the interr og ation, not the subjective vie ws of the police or the pe rson bei n g q u es t ioned. Sta ns bu ry , 511 U.S. at 323; Do wth itt , 9 31 S.W. 2d

a t 25 4; Houston , 185 S.W
. 3 d at 920. The subjec tive views of the police reg arding custody may be rele vant as a circ umstance of the interrog ation if they are convey ed to the ind i v i d u a l b e i n g qu e s t i o n e d , b u to n l y t o t h e e xt e n tt h a tt h e c o m m u n i c a t i o no f t h o s e v i e w s w o u ld aff ect a rea sonable pe rson’s under standing of hi s fre edom of action. Se e Sta ns bu ry , 511 U.S. at 325; Do wth itt , 9 31 S.W. 2d

a t 25 4; Houston , 185 S.W .3d at 920. Stationhouse questioning is not, in and of itself, custodial. Do wth itt , 9 31 S.W. 2d a t 25 5; Houston , 1 85 S.W. 3d a t 92 0; see O regon v. Mathiason , 429 U.S. 492, 496 (1977). But “the mer e fa ct that an inter rog ation beg ins as non-custodial does not pr event custody from arising later; police conduct dur ing the encounte r may
cause a conse nsual inquiry to esca late into custodial interrog ation.” Do wth itt , 931 S.W .2 d at 255.9 I n the hea ring on the m otion to suppress, Detec tive Bla ckmore testified that bef ore he intervie wed Saint J ames , S aint J ames initiated conta ct with him, leaving a messag e on the detec tive’s voice ma il indicating that he wanted to spe ak with him about the murder : Q: What me ssa g e did

the de fe nd ant l e a ve on

y our v oic e ma il? A He sa id, “ May

be the fi rs t th ingIne e d to say is M e rr y Chr istma s. Sa int

Jame s, Robert A.,” the re is a sig h, then he say s “murde r contest, lots of y ear s ag o, Don B ou ldr e y . G ive me a

c a ll. Ic an’t g ive y ou

a ph on e numbe r, bu t I

have g ot t o touch base with you. Homicide detec tives here in Me sa touched with me. L ike Isaid, Merr

y Christmas.”
After rec eiving this messag e, De tective B lackmore tes t ified that he a rra ng ed for a

“ no n- c us tod ia l me e tin g ” wi th S a int Jame s. D e t e c tiv e B la c kmo re the n p ro vid e d th e fo llo wi ngde ta ils ab o u tt h e m ee t i n g: Q: Now whe re did y ou meet with the def endant on F ebrua

ry 12, 2003? A: At the Me sa , A ri zon a

Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt. Q: And how is it that the defe ndant ar rived at that location? A: He dr ove himself fr om home. Q: And was this a non- custodial interview? A: Yes, sir. Q: Was the defe ndant told at differ ent points in ti me that he wa s fre e to leave ? A: He was t o ld numerous times that he wa s not under ar rest, that we had no intention of arr esting him there at that time, that he could talk to us and he was fre e to leave at any

time that he wished.10 After the interview on Fe bruar

y 12th, Saint J ames left the police station and r eturne d t o h i s h o m e, agr ee i n g t o re tu rn t h e f o l l o wi n g m o rn i n g: Q: Did the def

endant lea

ve the police station? A: Yes. De tective Ha

rdesty actua lly asked Mr . Saint J ames if he would be willing to return to the police station the next morning and talk to us further about the matter. He ag ree d to. We all left and we went to our hotel and Mr. Saint James went home. Q: Did he voluntarily

return on the 13th? A: He did.
Detec tiv e B la c k

mo r e w e nt o n

to e x plain that during the meetingon Fe bruar y 13, Saint Jame s c on fe sse d to his inv olv e me nt i n th e ro bb e ry wi tho ut a

ny qu e sti on ingfr om t

he de te c tiv e s: Q: What happened w hen he a rrived on the 13th? A: Almost im mediately we ha d g ather ed back in the interviewroom and a fter w e g ot toge ther Mr. Saint James told us that he had done some thinking over night and he ha d something that he wante d to tell us. He asked us t o s i t down, be quiet and not interrupt him and g ive him the opportunity to speak. Q: What di d h e re ve a l a t th a t po int ? A: He tol d u s at th a t po int tha t he wa s in vo lve d, that he ha d a c tua lly pa rt ic ipate d in the planning of the robbe ry of Mr. Doug herty
. . . . Q: Af te r h e g ive s y ou

that in iti a l bi t of

ne w i nf or ma tio n, wa s he ne ve rt

he le ss s til l i na n o n -c u s t o d i al s et t i n g? A: Yes, sir. Q: W as h e p l ac edu n d er arre s tat t h at p o i n to r a n y t h i n g? A: No, sir.11

Q: Did the interviewcontinue? A: I t did. Q: I n s ome de ta il d id h e ult imate ly pr ov ide a wr itt e n s ta te me nt? A: Yes, he did. Q: Di d y ou

g ive him Miranda war

nings p ri o r t o the obtaining of the wr itten statement that could be descr ibed as a confe ssion? A: Ye s.

. . . . Q: And the wr itten statement itself contains the Miranda wa rn ing s? A: I t does.

. . . . Q: Wer e the se vo lun tary state me nts ? A: Yes, sir. Q: Was he in c us tod

y a t th e tim e that he g a ve the se state me nts ? A: No, sir. Q: At the conc lusion of all his statements, did he in fact lea ve the police station? A: He did. Q: He wa s fre e to leave ? A: And he did, y es, sir.
Saint J ames a lso testified during the hea ring on the m o tion to suppress. After te sti fy ingthat he wa s n ot g ive n h is Miranda war nings until the end of

his interview on Fe bruar

y 13, h e e x p l a i n e d

t h a t , f o r m o s to f t h e i n t e r v i e w , h e d i d

n o tb e l i e v e h e w a s i nc u s t o dy:We note that the re ading of Miranda war nings doe s not transform a noncustodial setting 3 in to c u s to d ia l i n te r

r o g a ti on. See Un ite d S

tat es v . B au tis ta , 145 F.3d 1140, 1148 ( 10th Cir. 1998); Sprosty v. Buc hler , 79 F. 3d 63 5, 64 2 ( 7th Cir . 1 99 6) ; Davis v. Allsbrooks , 7 78 F .2 d 1 68 , 1 72 (4 th Cir . 1 98 5) (t o h old

tha t Miranda war

nings cre ate custody “would conver t admirable pr eca

utionary me a sure s o n th e pa

rt of of fi cers into a

n inve sti g a tor

y ob str uc tio n” ); United States v. Charles , 738 F.2d 686, 693 n.6 ( 5th Cir. 1984). Howeve r, the g iving of M iranda wa rn i n gs is a fac tor in the deter mination of whether a rea sonable person would believe that he is under a rre st. Se e Ba uti

sta , 14 5 F .3 d at 11 48 ; Sp ro sty , 79 F. 3d a t 642. Mo re ov e r, the re may be “ c ir c ums tanc e s whe re a c la sh of wills over a

suspect’s de sire to re m ai n silent would create custody throug h overbe aringpolice behavior .” Da v is , 7 78 F .2 d at 172 n .1 . T he re is n o e vid e nc e of “ ov e rb e ari ngpo lic e be havio r” in t his case . 12 Q: Finally , wer e y ou told that y ou could walk out and te rminate at any time? A: I ’ve g ot to admit, By ers a nd Detec tive Bla ckmore are pretty g ood cops and the y made ve ry

clea r to me that I

could leave at any

point at any

time. Q: Fr om y our point of view, did you fee l like y ou wer e beingtreated as a suspect or a wi tne ss? A: I ’m not g oing to be here to dent any body ’s fenders, but I was there to help the c op s o ut—

ba sic a lly a ba d w or d, he lp t

he po lic e de pa

rtmen t out a s ju st a conver sation, not as a witness, not as somebody that has t o be under

the Miranda rig hts. Iwas there to he lp the cops out, the police de partment, if you wish. Iwas ther e having a conversation with some men t hat needed som e help. That’s my

situation.
Sa int Jame s w e nt o n to te sti fy

that it wa s no t until a ft e r the de te c tiv e s g a ve him his Miranda war

nings that he believe d he wa s “in a ve ry tight spot.” 3 Ba sed on the totality

of the c ircumstance s surrounding the Fe bruar y 12 and 13 interviews, we find that there is sufficient evide n ce in the r ecor d to support the district court’s fi nd ing s th a t Sa int

Jame s w a s n ot u

nd e r a rr e st a nd wa s f re e to l e a ve , that hi s st a te me nt w a s f re e ly and voluntarily

made, a nd that the statement wa s not the result of custodi al i n t er ro gation. Saint J ames initiated conta ct wit h De t ective B lackmore , asking to speak with him about the murder
. Although the interview w as at the police station, Saint J ames drove himself to the station, and theSaint James filed a motion to abate this a ppeal and rema

nd for a hear ing on w hether trial 4 counsel wa s ineffe ctive. Saint J ames’s a ppointed appellate counsel filed a motion for new tria l but did not raise inef

fec tive assistance of counse l c laims be cause “the Reporter ’s Recor d had not bee n prepa red w ithin the tim e frame for fil ing a new trial motion and counsel could not have know n of the exist ence of these issues pr ior to review ing the Reporter ’s Recor d.”
13 detec tives repe atedly

informed Saint J ames that he was not unde r arr est, that they had no intention of ar resting him at that time, and that he wa s fre e to leave . I n fac t, Saint J ames fr eely left the police station af t er both the Fe bruar

y 12 and F ebrua

ry 13 interviews a

nd went home. The re is also no evidenc e of a

ny coer cive be havior o n the par t of the dete ctives. F urthermor e, whe n Saint J ames
arr ived at the police station on Fe bruar y 13, he conf

essed to his involvement in the robber y without
an y qu e s ti o n in g f

r o m t h e d e te c ti v e s . I nf

a c t, h e to ld

th e m “ to s it

d o w n , b e qu ie t a

n d n o t i n te rrupt him and g ive him the op po rt un ity to sp e a k. ” Th is is c le arl y no t the ty pe of sit uatio n the S up re me Court disapproved of

in either Miranda or Se ibe rt . Se e Rh od e Is lan d v . I

nn is , 446 U.S. 291, 299-300 (1980) (“A ny statement g iven fre ely and voluntarily without a ny compelling influence s is, of course , admissible in evidence .”). We c onclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion in denying Saint J ames’s motion to suppress. We overr ule Saint J ames’s f

irst issue.
Ineff ect ive assistance of counsel I n issues two, three, f

our, and f

ive, Saint J am es asser

ts that trial counsel wa s ine ff e c tiv e fo r: (1 ) f

a ili ngto m ov e to s up pr e ss the 19 86 Col or a do pr iso n s ta te me nt; (2 ) f a ili ngto
mov e to s up pr e ss t

he De c e mbe r 2 00 2 s ta te me nt ma de to De te c tiv e B y e rs in A ri zon a ; ( 3) fa ili ngto object to portions of the 1986, 2002, a nd 2003 stat em en t s wh i ch mentioned Saint J ames’s pr ior incar cer ations and past drug activities; and (4) failing to reque st a jury instruction on the issue of the voluntariness of Saint J ames’s state ments to the police. 4Texas Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 2 a uthorizes an appellate court, on a party ’s motion or on its own init iative, and in orde r to expedite a decision or for other good cause to “suspend a rule ’s op e ratio n in

a pa rt ic ula r c a se and or de r a dif

fe re nt pr oc e dure ; but a

c ourt mus t no t c on str

ue thi s r ule to suspend any

provision of the Code of Criminal Procedur e . . . .” Tex. R. App. P . 2. A cour t of a pp e a ls m ay

no t us e Rul e 2 to susp e nd or e nla rg e a pp e llate lim its that r e g ulate the or de rl y and tim e ly proce ss of m oving a case from trial to finality of conviction. Ol dh am v . S tat e , 977 S.W .2d 354, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Sa int J ame s h a s n ot s ho wn g oo d c a us e fo r t his Court to s us pe nd

the ru le s o f a

pp e llate pr oc e dure and

a llo w h im to fi le a ne w mot ion fo r n e w tri a l. A c c or din g ly , Sa int Jame s’ s mo tio n to abate appea l and re mand for a hear ing is de nied. See P ettway v. State, 4 S
. W
. 3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 1 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. re f’d)
. 14

I ne ff e c tiv e assista

nc e of c ouns e l c la ims are e va luate d und e r t he tw o- pa

rt te st formulated by

the Supreme Court in Strickland v. W ashington , 4 6 6 U. S
. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ), re qu i ri n g a showing of both defic ient p er fo rm an ce and pre judice. Go od

sp e e d v . S

tat e , 187 S.W .3d 390, 392 ( T e x. 2005). A S t r i ckland c la im mus t be “ fi rm ly

fo un de d in

the re c or d” a

nd “ the re c or d mu st aff irmatively demonstrate” the m eritorious nature of the claim. Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 81 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Di re c t a pp e a l is us ua lly

an ina de qu a te ve hic le fo r r a isi ngsu c h a c la im beca use the re cord is g ener ally undevelope d. Id . at 813-814. “ This is true wi t h re gar d t o the question of def

icient per formanc e—in which c ounsel’s conduct i s revie wed with g reat defe renc e, without the distorting eff

ects of hindsight—whe re counsel’s r easons f or fa iling to do something do not appea r in the re cord.” Goodspee d , 1 87 S.W. 3d a t 392. We h a ve sa id t

hat “ tr ia l c ouns e l sh ou ld ordinarily be af forde d an opportunit y

to expl ain his actions bef ore be ing de nounced a s ineffe ctive.” Ry lan de r v . S

tat e , 101 S.W .3d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Ab s ent such a n opportunity , an
a pp e llate c ourt

sh ou ld n ot f

ind de fi c ie nt p e rf

or manc e un le ss t he cha lle ng e d c on du c t w a s “ so outrag eous that no competent attorney would have e ng ag ed in it.” Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 57 S.W .3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).15 To sh owpr e

jud ic e , “ a pp e lla nt m us t sh owa

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, b ut f

or his counsel’s unpr o fe s s i o n al er rors, the r esult of the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent. A
rea sonable proba

bility is a probability sufficie nt to undermine confide nce in the outcome.” Mi tc he ll

v . S tat e , 68 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex
. C ri m . Ap p . 2002). “I n other wor ds, the appe llant must prove counsel’s r epr es en t at i o ns o u n d er m i n edt h e p ro p er fu n ct i o n i n g o f t h e a d v er s ar i al p ro ce s s t h at t he trial
cann o t b e re lied on as havingproduce d a just result.” Ha ll v . S tat e , 1 6 1 S. W. 3 d

1 4 2 , 1 5 2 ( T e x. Ap p . — T ex ar k an a 2 0 0 5 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 6) . I f, ho we ve r, “ the re is at le a st the po s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e c o n d u c t c o u l d h a v e b e e n l e g i t i m a t e t r i a l s t r a t e g y , ” t h e n w e m u s t “ d e f e r to counsel’s de cisions and deny relief on an ineffe ctive assistance claim on direc t appea l.” Id . (quoting Mu rp hy v . S tat e , 112 S.W .3d 592, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
19 86 Col orad o s tat e ment Sa int Jame s f ir st a sse rt s th a t c ouns e l w a s ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto m a ke a

mot ion to suppress the 1986 state ment Saint J ame s m ad e while in prison in Colorado bec ause it wa s made inv olu nta ri ly . Re g ard le ss of the me ri ts of thi s a sse rt ion , w e c on c lud e that c ouns e l’ s d e c isi on no t to
o b j e c tt o t h e a d m i s s i o no f

t h i s s t a t e m e n tr e a s o n a

b l y c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d

l e g i t i m a t e t r i a l s t r a t e g y. The 1986 stateme nt was consistent with Saint J ames’s trial testimony
. I n the s tatement, Saint J ames claimed he was simply

the neg otiator for a

drug transac tion a

nd that Bouldre y was re sponsible for the ro bb e ry

and mur de r. Gi ve n th e inc ri min a tin g natur e of Sa int Jame s’ s su

bs e qu e nt s ta te me nts to police, counse l m ay

have w anted the 1986 statement to come in as e vidence supporting Saint J ames’s the ory

of the c ase—that he was not re sponsible for Doug herty ’s death.16

Ev ide nc eof

prior inc ar c e ra tio ns a nd p as t dr ug a c tiv ity in a ll s tat

e ments Saint J ames a lso contends that counse l was ineff ective f or fa ili ng to object to portions of his 19 86 , 2 00 2, and

20 03 state me nts that re fe re nc e d pr ior inc arc e ra tio ns re la te d to d

ru g of fe ns e s. We c on c lud e that c ouns e l reaso nab ly c ou ld h a ve anti c ipate d th a t th is e vid e nc e wo uld c ome in any way . Whil e evidence of other crimes, wrong s or ac ts is not admis sible to prove the c hara cter of
a pe rs on in o rd e r t o s ho w a c tio n in c on fo rm ity

the re wi th, it m ay

be a dmi ssi ble fo r o the r p ur po se s, such as pr oof of motive, opportunity , intent, prepa ratio n , plan, knowledg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake or ac cident. See Tex. R. Evi d. 404(b). The robber y an d m u rder

arose out of a drug tr ans a c tio n. Ev ide nc e re la te d to Sa int Jame s’ s p ri or inv olv e me nt w ithdr ug s w a s d ir e c tly

re la te d to this offense. A dditionally , Saint J ames’s de fense was that he was mer ely a neg otiator for a

drug tr an s a c ti o n . E v id e n c e th a t h e w a s p r e v io u s ly inv o lv e d in dr u g s w a s r e le v an t to th a t de fense . We thus find it highly

unlikely that, even if

trial counsel ha d objected to t h e re fe re n ces to prior incar cer ations and past drug activity , the district court would not have allowed the ev i d en ce to be admitted.
De c e mber

20 02 sta te ment Sa int Jame s a lso a sse rt s th a t c ouns e l w a s ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto m a ke a

mot ion to
su pp re ss t he state me nt h e ma de to De te c tiv e B y e rs in De c e mbe r 20 02
. Al tho ug h Sa int Jame s a dmi ts that th is s ta te me nt w a s mad e vo lu nt arily , h e c on te nd s it sh ou ld h a ve be e n s up pr e sse d b e c a us e it contained r efe renc es to the 1986 statement a nd also to past drug offe nses. As we discusse d above,
c o u n s e l r e a s o n a

b ly c o u ld h a v e w an te d th e 1 9 8 6 s tate me n t to b e a d mi tt e d
. I f th a t w a s his trial strateg y , it could also be par t of his strat egy n o t t o object to portions of the 2002 stateme nt that17

ref err ed to the 1986 statement. We a lso do not be lieve counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to object to the ref ere nces to pa st drug offe nses, for the rea sons describe d above.
Jur y inst ruc tio n on v olu nta rine

ss Saint James further contends that counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failing to reque st a jury instruction on the voluntariness of his conf ession. Saint J ames c ites this C ourt’s opinion in Vasquez

v . S tat e , 1 79 S.W. 3d

64 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 05 , p e t. g ra

nte d) , in wh ic h w e he ld— fo r t

he fi rs t tim e —th a t “ a

de fe nd ant m ay

be e nti tl ed to an in str

uc tio n o n v olu

nta ri ne ss e ve n if

the fa c ts
s u r r o u n d i n g h i s c o n f

e s s i o n ar e u n d i s p u t e d
. A n i n s t r u c t i o n m u s t b e g i v e n i f a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y, vie wi ngthe tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s, c ou ld h a ve fo un d th a t th e state me nt w a s n ot v olu nta ri ly made.” Id . at 66 2. We f

ir st n ote that Vasquez

was not decide d until over a y ear afte r Saint J ames’s tr ia l. C ouns e l c ann ot b e e xpe c te d to c omp ly wi th a de c isi on that w a s n ot h and e d d ow n unti l w e ll afte r his repr esentation of his client ended. Se e Va ug hn v . S tat e , 93 1 S.W. 2d 56 4, 56 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1996) (“ An ineff

ective a ssistanc e o f co u n s el claim cannot be base d on an alleg ed er ror of counsel whe n the c as el aw ev al u at i n g co u n s el ’s ac t i o n s an d d ec i s i o n s i nt h at i n s t an ce wa s n o n ex i s tent
or no t de fi nit ive ” ). We a lso no te tha t Vasquez did not involve a claim of i neff ective a ssistance of counsel, a nd thus the decision did not addre ss the circ umstances in which counsel has an obligation to ask for suc h an instruction.

F ur the rm or e , e ve n a ssumin g tr ia l c ouns e l’ s pe rf or manc e wa s de fi c ie nt f

or fa ili ngto reque st a jury

instruction on voluntariness, Saint J ames ha s failed to show that, but for this e rror , the result of the pr ocee ding w ould have be en diffe rent. The re is en o u gh ev idence in the rec ord fr om which a rational jury could conclude t hat S aint J ames’s c onfession wa s voluntary . Saint J ames ha s18

fa ile d to de mon str a te a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, if

the jur y ha d b e e n in str

uc te d o n v olu

nta ri ne ss, t h e j u r y w o u l d n o th a v e f

o u n d h i s c o n f e s s i o nt o b e v o l u n t ar

y. F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s n o t i n e f f e c ti v e . We
ov e rr ule Sa int Jame s’ s se c on d, thi rd , f

ourt h, and fi ft h is su e s.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Saint J ames’s issues on a ppeal, we aff

irm th e judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.

_____________________________ _ _______ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 31, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh