Roger Yanez Martinez v. State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00610-CR
Roger Yanez MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1999-CR-2293
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2001

AFFIRMED

Roger Yanez Martinez appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his written statement. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Only one witness testified at the suppression hearing - Detective Ernest Tavitas of the San Antonio Police Department's Homicide Division. According to Tavitas, on the evening of May 11, 1999 - shortly after Martinez was indicted - he was arrested and taken to the Bastrop County Jail. Approximately thirty minutes later, Tavitas read Martinez his rights from a warning card. These rights consisted of the following:

Before you are asked any questions, it is my duty as a police officer to advise you of your rights and to warn you of the consequences of waiving these rights.

1. You have the right to remain silent.

2. You do not have to make any statement, oral or written, to anyone.

3. Any statement that you make will be used in evidence against you in a court of law at your trial.

4. You have a right to have a lawyer present to advise you before and during any questioning by police officers or attorneys representing the state.

5. You may have your own lawyer present, or if you are too poor to hire a lawyer, the court will appoint a lawyer for you free of charge, now, or at any other time.

6. If you decide to talk with anyone, you can stop talking to them at any time you want.

7. The above rights are continuing rights which can be urged by you at any stage of the proceeding.

After reading Martinez his rights, Tavitas asked Martinez if he understood them. Martinez answered "yes." Martinez also wrote "yes" next to the same inquiry at the bottom of the form. Before questioning began, Martinez also signed the warning card.

Still at the Bastrop jail, Tavitas and Martinez worked on a statement until midnight. While Tavitas sat at the computer, Martinez looked over his shoulder. When the two-page statement was completed, Tavitas printed a copy for Martinez to read and decide whether to sign. At the top of the first page of the statement appears the following:

I, Roger Yanez Martinez first being duly warned by Det. Ernest A. Tavitas #2145 of the San Antonio Police Department at 9:20 p.m., at the Bastrop Sheriff's Office on May 11, A.D., 1999 that 1) I have the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all, and any statement I do make may be used against me at my trial; 2) Any statement I make may be used as evidence against me in Court; 3) I have the right to have a lawyer present to advise me prior to and during any questioning; 4) If I am unable to employ a lawyer, I have the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise me prior to and during any questioning; 5) I have the right to terminate the interview at any time; and I understand that the above rights are continuing rights and may be urged by me at any stage of the proceedings, and I hereby prior to and during the making of this statement, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the above rights and give to the said, Det. Ernest A. Tavitas, the person to whom this statement is being given, the following statement:

....

Today the police went to my house in Cedar Creek, Texas and arrested me for Capital Murder. I was read my rights and the police have asked me to give them a statement. I am giving this statement of my own free will because I want to. I have not been threatened in any way. I have not been promised anything in exchange to give this statement.

After reading the statement, Martinez signed each page of the document in the presence of two civilian employees of Bastrop County. At no time prior to signing the statement did Martinez invoke any of his rights.

Before trial, Martinez filed a written motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. Martinez then pled guilty to the murder of Christian Maldonado and was sentenced to life in prison. Martinez has appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Under this standard, we view "the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling," affording almost total deference to findings of historical fact supported by the record. Id. However, when the resolution of the factual issues does not turn upon an evaluation of credibility or demeanor, we review the trial court's determination of the applicable law, as well as its application of the law to the facts it has found, de novo. Id.

Discussion

In his sole point of error, Martinez contends the trial court abused its discretion in determining that his statement was voluntary because there is no evidence he affirmatively waived his rights. We disagree. The record conclusively establishes Martinez was advised of and understood his rights and, in signing his statement, "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive[d] the above rights and give to the said, Det. Ernest A. Tavitas, the person to whom this statement is being given, the following statement." The required warnings and waiver appear on the face of the statement. No more is required. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 2 (Vernon 1982). The judgment is affirmed.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish