Court Opinion

ID: 9654401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:19:12.177629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:08.986187
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
A supplemental transcript which contains the written findings of the trial judge as to the voluntariness of appellant’s confession has been filed in this cause. Cf. Swenson v. Stidham, 409 U.S. 224, 93 S.Ct. 359, 34 L.Ed.2d 431. The written findings state that the trial court found:
“That after the Defendant’s arrest he was carried before a magistrate, who informed the defendant of the accusation against him and of any affidavit filed therewith, of the defendant’s right to retain counsel, of defendant’s right to request appointment of counsel if indigent and unable to afford counsel, of defendant’s right to remain silent, of defendant’s right to have an attorney present during any interview with peace officers or attorneys representing the state, of defendant’s right to terminate the interview at any time, of defendant’s right to have an examining trial, and that he was not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him could be used against him; that defendant did then knowingly waive his right to an attorney; and that the defendant did then freely and voluntarily, without being induced by any compulsion, threats, promises, or persuasion, make and sign a confession in writing; and the trial court further found beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession of the defendant was freely and voluntarily made without any compulsion or persuasion and that it was admissible.”
Therefore, both constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908; Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 345; Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P.
Now we reach the contentions raised by appellant herein. First, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his written confession as it did not comply with the requirements of Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P. Specifically, he contends that the statement was given on the second day after he was arrested and that he had given one statement the day before; therefore, he should have been again taken before a magistrate for the warning required under Article 38.22, supra, before giving the second statement.
The record reveals that appellant was arrested on August 21, 1971, and was taken before a magistrate on that same day, at approximately 1:15 P.M., where he was given the warning pursuant to Article 15.-17, V.A.C.C.P. In addition to the magistrate’s warning, Sgt. Simpson, of the Aus*308tin Police Department, warned appellant prior to any questioning, and repeated the warning to him several times. Officer Simpson testified that appellant gave a written statement on August 22, 1971, between 9 A.M. and 12 noon. He further testified that on the morning of August 23, 1971, it came to his attention that appellant was probably involved in some other offenses which had not been discussed prior to that time. He stated that he went to the county jail and took the appellant back to the city jail, at which time he again gave the appellant a warning. Thereafter, the appellant gave the written statement which he complains about herein.
The appellant, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, testified that he had finished high school and had attended college and that he could read and write the English language. In his brief, he does not contend that the statement was coerced from him, or that it was the product of threats or promises. His only contention appears to be that the provisions of Article 38.22, supra, were not complied with.
As heretofore stated, appellant contends that because he was not again taken before a magistrate prior to the giving of the second statement, such second statement should not have been introduced into evidence at the trial and that the motion to suppress such statement should have been granted. Such contention is without merit. A warning by either a magistrate or the person taking the statement is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 38.22, supra. See, e. g., Dunlap v. State, 462 S.W.2d 591.
Finally, appellant contends that the in-court identification should have been suppressed.
We do not reach this contention because the record shows that the state relied upon appellant’s confession to connect him with the crime. The victim of the robbery testified that he could not identify the appellant as one of the robbers and his testimony merely shows that the substantive crime of robbery had been perpetrated upon him. No error has been shown.
There being no reversible error, the state’s motion for rehearing is granted; the judgment reversing the conviction is set aside, and the judgment is affirmed.