Court Opinion

ID: 9811824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:30:13.081462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:48.078643
License: Public Domain

CASTILLO, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion on issues one, three and five. However I join in the reasoning in part II of the dissent by Justice Yáñez and would find that: 1) the juvenile was in custody; 2) his family code section 52.02(b) rights were violated; and 3) he was harmed by the admission of his confession. I agree with the majority that appellant’s second issue on appeal, relating to the section 52.02(b) violation, may not be addressed because the issue was not preserved for our review and so I concur in the disposition of this issue without adopting the portion of the opinion concluding that appellant was not in custody. As I agree that, under the facts of this case, appellant was in custody and his section 52.02(b) rights were violated, I would find that good grounds existed on which to urge a motion to suppress his confession which were not raised before the trial court. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reasoning as to issue four. The record before us, however, is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonably professional assistance. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)(noting that in most cases, the record on direct appeal is not adequate to review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). I therefore also concur in the majority’s disposition only as to issue four.