Joseph Lee Flores v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 14th District Court of Appeals » 2010 » Joseph Lee Flores v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-08-00848-CR

Case Date: 12/16/2010

Plaintiff: Joseph Lee Flores

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County

Preview:Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 16, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-08-00835-CR NO. 14-08-00848-CR JOSEPH LEE FLORES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 434th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 44,556, 44,557

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joseph Lee Flores, appeals from his convictions for aggravated robbery and attempted capital murder of a peace officer. In three issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress a videotaped statement he made subsequent to his arrest because (1) he did not intelligently and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights prior to making the statement; (2) the State illegally induced his statement by making improper promises; and (3) the statement included evidence of appellant's post-arrest silence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND According to numerous witnesses, on June 2, 2006, appellant engaged in a prolonged high speed chase with police officers. During the chase, appellant shot an officer and stole a pickup truck at gunpoint after the first vehicle he was in broke down. After his arrest, appellant was taken to the Sugar Land, Texas police station for questioning. The questioning was videotaped, and the videotape was played for the jury at trial over appellant's objection. Before trial, the trial court considered appellant's motion to suppress the videotape and heard testimony thereon. However, other than ruling that certain portions of the recording regarding appellant's criminal history should be redacted, the court carried the motion with the trial. At the pre-trial hearing, Detective Bart Grider, who conducted the interview of appellant, testified that appellant had given his statement freely and voluntarily. Grider stated that appellant appeared lucid in his responses and that nothing about appellant's behavior lead Grider to believe that appellant was overly tired, distracted, or suffering withdrawal. According to the detective, although appellant did not state that he wanted to talk to Grider, appellant's body language indicated that he was willing to talk to the detective. Grider further admitted that he did not ask appellant if he wanted to talk with him. Grider also explained that he did not raise his voice to

appellant, threaten him, or offer him a lesser charge if he cooperated. Prior to the admission of the redacted video, Grider restated stated that he had not coerced, threatened, or offered any promises regarding lesser charges in exchange for appellant's cooperation. The trial court then admitted the video over appellant's

objections and granted him a running objection to the admission of the video. In the videotape, after Detective Grider had informed appellant of his Miranda rights, Grider asked appellant if he understood his rights. After appellant clearly nodded his head up and down in response, Grider began questioning him. During the course of the approximately fifty-minute interview, appellant appeared calm and, for the most part, 2

intelligible and responsive.

On a number of occasions, appellant paused before

answering a question or failed to answer a question before Grider began talking again. The vast majority of these lapses in the conversation were less than ten seconds in duration. At the beginning of the interview, Grider provided appellant with water and briefly removed his handcuffs so that appellant could move his hands from behind him to in front of him to drink the water. Appellant requested a cigarette several times during the interview. Grider replied that they would take a cigarette break after appellant answered some questions. Grider and appellant twice left the room for cigarette breaks during the course of the interview and did not return to the interview room after the second one. At one point, appellant informed Grider that he had not slept in four days; however, except for a few yawns, which increased in frequency and duration toward the end of the interview, appellant did not appear impaired in his capacity to converse with Grider. During the interview, appellant neither confessed to shooting the officer nor confessed to using a firearm in stealing the second vehicle. He did, however,

acknowledge fleeing from police and taking the vehicle, and he acknowledged that handguns were present in the vehicles. Whenever directly asked if he was responsible for any of the shooting, appellant declined to answer, at one point responding only: What's the next question? At the conclusion of his trial, a jury convicted appellant of both offenses and assessed punishment at sixty years' confinement and a $10,000 fine for the aggravated robbery and life in prison and a $10,000 fine for the attempted capital murder. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal in both cases. On the State's motions, we abated these appeals for the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the voluntariness of appellant's statement pursuant to article 38.22. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22,

Download 87678.pdf