Matthew Curtis Vaughn v. State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 4th District Court of Appeals » 2002 » Matthew Curtis Vaughn v. State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 04-01-00381-CR

Case Date: 12/18/2002

Plaintiff: Matthew Curtis Vaughn

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Preview:Matthew Curtis Vaughn v. State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Nos. 04-01-00380-CR & 04-01-00381-CR Matthew Curtis VAUGHN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1999-CR-2744 & 1999-CR-2745 Honorable Sam Katz, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 18, 2002 AFFIRMED Memorandum Opinion Matthew Curtis Vaughn pled nolo contendre to the charges of aggravated assault and murder. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for the assault and life imprisonment for the murder. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in admitting his second oral statement in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as his rights under both the Texas and United States Constitutions. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the convictions in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 for the following reasons: 1. The appropriate standard of review for a suppression ruling is bifurcated, giving almost total deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but conducting a de novo review of the court's application of law to those facts. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The trial court is the exclusive judge of credibility, and the judge may disbelieve any part of a witness's testimony even if the testimony is uncontroverted. Id. at 855; Castro v. State, 914 S.W.2d 159, 162 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1995, pet. ref'd).Before questioning Vaughn, Detective Andrew Carian read Vaughn his Miranda rights. Vaughn affirmatively stated that he understood these rights and signed the form card as evidence of such. Although Vaughn claims to have asked a jailer for an attorney, he never asked to stop the interview or to speak with an attorney while in Carian's presence. Because Vaughn received the appropriate warnings, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived these rights, and never invoked the right to an attorney, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Vaughn's second statement. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon 2002); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477,482-484 (1981); North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); Etheridge v. State, 903 S.W.2d 1, 16-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994);Port v. State, 798 S.W.2d 839, 842 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, pet. ref'd). We overrule Vaughn's sole issue on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PAUL W. GREEN

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15678.html[8/20/2013 7:37:29 PM]

JUSTICE Do Not Publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15678.html[8/20/2013 7:37:29 PM]

Download 15678.pdf