Court Opinion

ID: 9672883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:14.325794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.915611
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
The disposition of appellant’s ground of error which complains that he was not properly warned of his rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, though repeatedly warned of his rights in accordance with Arts. 15.17 and 38.22 C.C.P. (1965), is controlled by Charles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 909, cert. denied, 392 U.S. 940, 88 S.Ct. 2319, 20 L.Ed.2d 1401.
It is again pointed out that the opinion in Miranda sets out procedural safeguards and measures required “unless we are shown other proceduies which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it.”
As we held in Charles v. State, supra, the Texas Statutes, Arts. 38.22 and 15.17, supra, enacted after and under the impact of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977, supply such effective means and more.