1 E.g. , Arlin ev . S tate , 7 21 S.W. 2d

34 8, 35 3 n .9 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 86 ); Le ev . S tate , 791 S.W. 2d 14 1, 14 2 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 90 ); Ho lla nd v . S tate , 802 S .W. 2d

69 6, 70 0- 01 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ); Stringe r v . S

tate , 241 S.W .3d 52, 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Georg e E. Dix & Robe rt O. Daw son, 43A T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 44.21, at 858-59 (2d e d. 2001). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1123- 08 & P D - 1124- 08 JEFF ER Y D A N I EL H U G H EN , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE S I XT H CO URT O F AP PEALS

FANNI N CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h J OHNS ON , J. , j oi ne d. DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON I r es pect ful l ydi s s entt o t he C our t di s pos i ng of t hi s cas e on t he basi s of an i s s ue t hat
w a s n e v e r d e c id e d b yth e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls. F o r a lo n g tim e w e h a v e sa id th a t, i n o u r c a p a c ity as a di scr et i on aryrevi ew cou rt , w e revi ew on l y“decis i on s” o f the co urt s of ap peals
. W e 1Hughen — 2

2 E.g. , Ba rfi e ld v . S

tate , 63 S.W .3d 446, 449 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 3 I f the court of appeals failed to rende r a de cision on an issue prope rly brought beforeit, we will sometim es grant discr etionary revie w to deter

mine whether the court of appeals e rre d in failing to decide the i ssue. But when we f ind error on the par

t of the cour

t of appe als in these instance s, we rema nd to the court of appeals rather than re ach themerits ourselves. E.g. , Le ev . S tate , su pra ; D ix & D awson, su

pra , § 44.23, at 862-63. 4 E.g. , Ow e ns v . S

tate , 827 S.W .2d 911, 917-18 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Dix & D awson, su pra , § 44.21, at 859. Se eals o S ta te v . Consaul , 9 8 2 S.W .2d 899, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Price, J., concurring) (“This c o urt ’s jurisdiction is li mited to review of decisions by

the cour ts of appeals.”). hav e no t al w ay s been able t o agree on w hat con st i t utes a “decis i on ” of t he court of ap peals
. 2 B ut w e have been fai r l y cons i s t ent i n t he r equi r ement t hat t he cour t of appea l s m us t r eac h a

“ d e c i s i o n ” wi t h r e s p e c t t o a n i s s u e b e f o r e we wi l l r e v i e w i t o n t h e me r i t s . Th e r e a r e s o me 3 in d ica tio n s in th e c a se law th a t w e m a ye v e n lac k ju risd ictio n to d o o th e rw ise
. In c a se s in 4

w hi ch t he di r ectappea l s cour t s houl d have r eac hed t he mer i t s of an i s s ue, but d i d not , and t h e f a i l u r e t o r e a c h t h e me r i t s i s b r o u g h t t o o u r a t t e n t i o n i n a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w,
w e r emand so t hat t he appel l at e cour t can r eac h a “de ci s i on” i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance . B ut w e do not addr es s t he mer i t s our s el ves unl es s t he i s s ue i s br ought back t o us aft err emand. A s I read the co u rt o f a p p ea ls’ s o p inion in this ca se, i t add resse d o n lythe a p p ell an t’ s Fi ft h A m endment cl ai m , even though he al s o pl ai nl ym ad e a sep arat e Si xt h A m endment cl ai m on appea l
. O n di r ectappea l , ci t i ng bot h t he Fi fth and Si xt h A m endment s , t he appe l l ant
a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n yi n g h i s p r e t r i a l m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, he ar gued t hatt he w ai verof couns el t hathe gave t o po li ce w as inva l i d beca us e t heyHughen — 3

5 498 U.S. 146 (1990). 6 475 U.S. 625 (1986). 7 In Minnick, the Court held that oncea suspec t invokes his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel pre sent during custodial interrog ation, police may not initiate interrog ation unless counsel is actua lly prese nt. 498 U.S. at 153. In Jack son , the Court held that oncethe Six th Amendment right to c ouns e l atta c he s and

thea c c us e d r e qu e sts the assis tanc e of c ouns e l, p oli c e may

no t in iti ate interrog ation until the accuse d has consulted with his counsel. 475 U
. S
. at 636. Bu t se eMo nte jo v. Louisiana , _

_ _ U. S
.

_ _ _ , _ _ _ , 1 2 9 S
. C t . 2 0 7 9 , 2 0 9 1 (2 0 0 9 ) ( o v erru l i n g Michigan v. J ackson ). appr oache d hi m and i nt er r ogat ed hi m w it h o u t f ir s t cont act i ng hi s couns el
. H i s ar gum ent cont i nued: A f

ter th e in v o c a tio n o f th e rig h t to c o u n se l u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t, and af t ert he S i xt h A m endment r i ght t o couns el at t ache s , bot h acc om pl i s hed f a c ts in th is ca se p rio r t o in ter ro g a tio n , an ysu b se q u e n t w a iv e r o f c o u n se l, t o be ef fec t i ve, m us t be t he pr oduct of ei t her acc us ed- i ni t i at ed comm uni cat i ons w it h the pol i ce, or pol i ce- i ni t i at ed comm uni cat i ons w i t h t he ac cus ed i n t he p re se n c e o f

c o u n se l. I n s uppor t of t hi s ar gum ent , t he appe l l antci t ed Mi nni ck v

. Mis s is s i ppi , and Mi chi

gan v. 5 Jack s on , am on g o t her cases. 6 7 W i t h r es pectt o t he appel l ant ’ s Fi ft h A m endment ar gum ent , t he St at e r es ponded t hat t he requ estfor cou nsel he m ade at t he A rt i cl e 15
. 17 i nit i al app earance “did n ot i nv ok e [his ] Fi ft h A m endment r i ght t o couns el beca us e [he ] w as not s ubj ect ed t o pol i ce i nt er r ogat i on at [ th a t] tim e .” W ith re sp e c t to th e a p p e llan t’s d isc re te S ix th A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t, th e S tate
r es ponded t hatatt he t i m e t he pol i ce i nt er r ogat ed hi m , hi s Si xt h A m endment r i ght t o couns el had noty etat t ache d.Hughen — 4

8 Hu gh e n v . S tate , 2 65 S.W. 3d

47 3, 48 2- 84 , 4 86 (T e x.Ap p. –T e x arka na 2 00 8) ; Hughen v

. Sta te , No. 06-07-00092- CR (Tex.App.–Tex arka na 2008) (not designated f or publication). 9 Hughen , 265 S.W .3d at 484. 10 SeeTex. R. App. P roc. 66.3( c). T h e c o urtof ap peals rej ect ed the a p p e llan t’s F if th A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t, i n e x p lica b ly f a iled to a d d r e ss h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t, an d a f f irm e d th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n ts of convi ct i on. W i t h r es pec t to the appe l l ant ’ s Fi ft h A m endment ar gum ent , t he cour tof 8
a p p e a l s h a d t h i s t o s a y:

“H ug h en d o es not cl ai m , nor does t he r ecor d s how , t hathe w as su b jec ted to c u sto d ial in ter ro g a tio n w h e n h e a p p e a re d b e f o r e th e m a g istra te [pur s uant t o A r t i cl e 15. 17] and made a for m al r eques t t o have c ouns el a p p o in ted . It w a s s im p lyn o t an e x p re ss io n f o r a ss ista n c e in d e a lin g w ith cus t odi al i nt er r ogat i on byt he pol i ce. T hus , offi cer s w er e notr equi r ed [byt he Fi ft h A m endment ] t o r efr ai n fr om i ni t i at i ng i nt er r ogat i on, and i t i s cl eart hat H ughen w ai ved hi s [Fi ft h A m endment ] r i ght t o s i l ence and t o couns el i n t hat re g a rd a t th e tim e q u e s tio n in g c o m m e n c e d .” 9 T h e a p p ell an t l ater filed p eti ti o n s fo r discre ti o n aryrev iew , w h ich w e g ran ted. In 10 h is p e tit io n s a n d a c c o m p a n y in g b rie f , th e a p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t “th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls [ e rro n e o u sly ] c o n f

in e d it’s [ sic ] a n a ly sis
. . . to [ th e ] F if th A m e n d m e n t” a n d “ f a il[e d ] to
r ecogni ze thatt hi s cas e i s cont r ol l ed byt he Si xt h A m endment ” as i nt erpr et ed i n R ot hger y v.Hughen — 5

11 ___U.S.___, 128 S.Ct
. 2578 (2008). In Ro thge ry , the Court held that the Six th Amendment right to counsel attache s at an Ar ticle 15.17 initial appearancebefor e a ma g istrate. Id ., S.Ct . at 2591- 92. 12 4 7 5 U
. S
. 6 2 5 (1986). 13 4 3 0 U
. S
. 3 8 7 ( 1 9 7 7 )
. In Brewer , the Court he ld that on c e theSixth Ame ndme nt right t o counsel attaches, a

n acc used has the right to have counse l present during policeinterrog ation. Id ., at 401. G i l l es pi e C o. , Mi chi

gan v. Jack

s on , and B r e we rv . Wi l l i a ms . T he appe l l antar gues 11 1 2 13 f u rth e r, as h e d id b e lo w , tha t o n c e h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n se l atta c h e d , as it p lai n ly d id at h is A rt icl e 15
. 1 7 init ial ap p ea ran ce , then , u n d er Mi chi gan v. Jack

s on , hi s r i ght t o couns el coul d not be w ai ved “unl es s ( a) [he] i ni t i at e[d] cont act w i t h pol i ce, w hi ch di d not h a p p e n h e re , o r ( b ) [ h is ] l a w y e r a g re e [ d ] t o th e w a iv e r, [ w h ic h a ls o d id n o t h a p p e n h e re ].” T he S t at e, i n r es pons e, conce des t hatt he cour t of appe al s fai l ed t o addr es s t he appel l ant ’ s Si xt h A m endment ar gum entbut as s er t s t hat t hi s fai l ur e w as pr operbeca us e: ( 1) t he appe l l ant ’ s Si xt h A m endment ar gum ent w as not pr es er ved for appel l at e re vi ew and ( 2) even i f i t w er e pre s er ved, i t w as , for var i ous r eas ons , m er i t l es s . T he S t at e al s o ar gues t hat

“ [ i ] f t h e Co u r t o f Ap p e a l s e r r e d , t h e e r r o r wa s h a r ml e s s b e c a u s e t h e a d mi s s i o n o f [ t h e DVD] d id n o t m a te ri a lly a f

f e c t [ th e a p p e lla n t’ s ] c o n v ic tio n o r p u n is h m e n t.” T exas R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 47. 1 pr ovi des : “The cour t of appe al s m us t hand d ow n a w r i t t en opi ni on t hat
. . . addr es s es everyi s s ue r ai s ed and ne ces s ar yt o fi nal d is p o s itio n o f

th e a p p e a l.” In th is c a s e , th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls f a ile d to a d h e re to R u le 4 7 .1 , i
. e. ,Hughen — 6

14 Kom bu do v . S

tate , 17 1 S.W. 3d

88 8, 88 9 ( Te x.Crim. Ap p. 20 05 ); Lig ht v . S tate , 15 S.W .3d 104, 105 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

15 ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.C t. 2079 (2009). 16 Seenote 1, an te . i t fai l ed t o addr es s t he appe l l ant ’ s Si xt h A m endment ar gum ent , even though t hatar gum ent
w a s c lea rlyse t o u t in h is a p p e llate b rie f s. A c c o rd in g ly , the o n lyp ro p e r re m e d yis f o r u s to
vaca t e t he j udgm ent s of t he cour t of appe al s and r emand t he ca s es t o t hatcour t s o t hati tm ay
cons i dert he appe l l ant ’ s Si xt h A m endment ar gum ent i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance . I t m ay w el l be 14 th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w ill b e a b le to d isp o se o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t cla im a s re lativ e ly
s um m ar i l yas t he maj or i t yhas done t oday , gi ven t he i nt er veni ng opi ni on of t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t i n Mont ej o v. Loui s i ana . T hat i s i t s pr er ogat i ve. B ut unt i l i t has done s o, 15 t her e i s no “dec i s i on” of th e co u rt of appe al s forus t o r evi ew i n our di s cr et i onar yr evi ew
c a p a c i t y. 16 B e c a u se th e C o u rt a d d re ss e s th e m e ri ts o f th e a p p e llan t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t cla im in ste a d o f

re m a n d in g it fo r d isp o sitio n in th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls, I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t. Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2009 P ub l i sh