Tuan Tran v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-131-CR

TUAN TRAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 631,302

O P I N I O N

Appellant Tran appeals his conviction for murder, for which he sentenced to fifty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant was indicted for capital murder. The State moved to reduce the offense to murder and appellant pled guilty before the judge, who assessed punishment at fifty years in prison.

Police officers were investigating a capital murder case in which several persons committed a home-invasion robbery in which Ivy Sian was shot and killed. Information was obtained that the suspects were in an apartment. Orders were obtained for the named suspects to appear at a lineup.

At 9:15 a.m. on January 17, 1992, officers knocked at the door of the apartment, identified themselves and entered. Ten persons were on the floor asleep, seven of whom were adults and the rest were juveniles. All but one of the suspects, for whom the officers had orders to appear in a lineup, were present.

Appellant, a 16-year-old juvenile, was not named in the order but was taken into custody for being truant and in need of supervision because he had partied all night in the apartment where two handguns were found. Also Appellant told the officers he was on probation and they thought he may have violated some term of his probation by being there.

Appellant was transported to 601 Lockwood, the Harris County Sheriff's Detective Division, which is also designated as a juvenile processing office, at 11:45 a.m. At noon Appellant was taken to the 351st District Courtroom where Judge Stilley gave him his warnings. Appellant was then returned to 601 Lockwood.

Questioning of Appellant did not begin until 4:00 p.m. This delay was due to the number of persons who were being interviewed and the delay in determining that Appellant was a suspect. Appellant admitted his part as the shooter in the capital murder. Prior to reducing Appellant's statement to writing, Detective Graham was told that it was close to the six-hour-time-limit for holding Appellant and it was time to take him to the juvenile ward. It was approximately 5:00 p.m. when Appellant's interview was interrupted to transport him from the 601 Lockwood facility. Appellant agreed to give a written statement at a later time.

On January 19, 1992, two days later, Detective Valerio checked Appellant out of the juvenile facility to further interview him. Appellant was taken to the Galena Park Municipal Building to receive further warnings from Judge Biggs. At 4:30 p.m. Judge Biggs conducted the warnings in accordance with the Texas Family Code. Detective Valerio then took Appellant to the Galena Park Police Department where Appellant was interviewed, resulting in his written confession. Appellant was then taken back to Judge Biggs who made sure Appellant's confession was intelligently and voluntarily given before allowing him to sign it in his presence.

The juvenile court waived its jurisdiction and Appellant was certified for trial as an adult. Appellant filed a motion to suppress his confession. The trial court, after a hearing, denied such motion, finding the confession was legally obtained.

Thereafter Appellant pled guilty to murder, was convicted by the judge who assessed punishment at fifty years in prison. Appellant appeals on seven points of error, all relating to asserted errors of the trial court in denying his motion to suppress his confession.

Appellant's first three points assert the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his oral confession on January 17, 1992, because it was obtained after Appellant had been detained over six hours, and that his detention was in a location other than a juvenile detention facility.

Texas Family Code 52.025(a) provides that a child may not be detained in a juvenile processing office for longer than six hours. The location at 601 Lockwood was a juvenile processing office. Appellant was detained in excess of six hours before he orally confessed to the killing of the victim. The officers, realizing that the six hours had "run," did not take a written confession but transported Appellant to the juvenile facility.

The oral confession was not objected-to at the hearing to suppress, but "any objections were reserved for the trial." Points one, two, and three are without merit and are overruled.

Points four and five contend the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress his written confession because the State failed to apprise Judge Biggs of Appellant's earlier verbal confession and because Judge Biggs' questioning of Appellant failed to reveal whether Appellant's written confession was the product of any prior confession.

Judge Biggs gave Appellant warnings on January 19, 1992. He advised Appellant what he was accused of, read him his rights in accordance with the Texas Family Code, asked him if he was feeling bad or was ill, and had him sign a copy of the warnings. Judge Biggs specifically advised Appellant he had the right to remain silent and not to make any statement, that any statement he made could be used against him; that he the right to have an attorney advise him prior to and during questioning; that he had the right to terminate any interview at any time; that if he was unable to employ an attorney that an attorney would be appointed for him; and that the juvenile court could waive its jurisdiction and he could be tried as an adult.

Appellant was then interviewed by Detective Valerio and gave his written confession, and thereafter brought back to Judge Biggs. Judge Biggs then gave him a second warning outside the presence of the officer, which warning covered the same matters as the prior warning.

Appellant told Judge Biggs that he understood all of his warnings; then Judge Biggs had Appellant read his confession aloud to him. Judge Biggs then asked Appellant if he had been promised anything or threatened in anyway or if he had been deprived of food, drink or sleep in making his confession. Appellant told Judge Biggs his statement was voluntary and he had not been deprived of food, drink, or sleep.

Judge Biggs' warnings, both before and after Appellant gave his confession but before he signed it, were thorough and complete. Defense counsel cross-examined Judge Biggs but did not ask him what effect any knowledge of a prior oral statement would have had upon his examination of Appellant to determine if Appellant knowingly and voluntarily gave his written confession. Points four and five are without merit and are overruled.

Points six and seven assert the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the written confession because such written confession was directly linked to the illegally obtained oral confession and this was obtained by the exploitation of the fruit of the initial illegalities and not obtained by means sufficiently attenuated to be purged of the primary taint of unlawful police conduct.

Appellant relies on three asserted illegalities: (1) excessive force used in the raid involving seventeen officers, six of whom entered the apartment with drawn pistols; (2) the police violation of Tex. Fam. Code 52.02(a) in failing to take Appellant to a designated juvenile processing office; and (3) the detention of Appellant for over six hours in violation of Tex. Fam. Code 52.02(d). Appellant asserts the critical link between two confessions is provided by Appellant's agreement during the initial detention to give a written statement at a later date.

There is nothing excessive in using seventeen officers, six of whom were armed, to enter an apartment occupied by ten persons who were suspects in a capital murder case. The allegations of failure to take Appellant to a juvenile processing center and his detention for over six hours have been addressed under points one through three.

Any illegality in the manner or time of Appellant's detention on January 17, 1992, was attenuated by the time Appellant was questioned on January 19, 1992, by both the lapse of time and by the very thorough warnings administered by Judge Biggs both before and after he accepted Appellant's confession. Points six and seven are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Justice Cummings,

Justice Vance, and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 20, 1995

Do not publish