Adam Hector Cordova v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00639-CR

Adam H. CORDOVA,

Appellant

v.

State of TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-3793

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2004

AFFIRMED

Adam H. Cordova appeals his capital murder conviction and life sentence. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion under Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

1. In his first issue, Cordova says the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car. He argues that the police had no probable cause to search his car without a warrant. And, because he was in custody, he says his consent to search the car was not freely and voluntarily given. At the motion to suppress hearing, testimony showed that after Cordova was taken into custody he was repeatedly read his Miranda rights and was questioned in a non-coercive environment. During the questioning he gave a written statement to the officers and agreed that the officers could search his car. He signed a written voluntary consent form that was admitted into evidence. The State has the burden to prove that the consent to search was voluntary, and deference is given to the trial court's decision on this question. The record supports the trial court's ruling. See Guevara v. State, 97 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The issue is overruled.

2. In his second issue, Cordova says the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge for cause of venireperson Rivera. Cordova says Rivera's physical condition did not render her unfit for jury service and she should not have been excused from the venire. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.16(a)(5)(Vernon 1989). Rivera testified during voir dire that because of back surgery, sitting for extended periods of time causes her pain. She takes medication to treat the pain, but the medication makes her drowsy. She also testified she has a hard time hearing. Because of these considerations, and others, she said she could not devote her full attention to the trial. The trial court granted the challenge for cause on the basis that her medications and hearing deficiency could cause her to miss some of the evidence. The evidence supports the trial court's ruling. No abuse of discretion is shown. See Nobles v. State, 843 S.W.2d 503, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (challenge for cause granted because of venireperson's hearing deficiency). The issue is overruled.

The conviction is affirmed.

Paul W. Green, Justice

Do Not Publish