McCambridge v. State

• Decision Date: 29 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 01-84-0507-CR,01-84-0507-CR
• Citation: 698 S.W.2d 390
• Parties: Dennis Michael McCAMBRIDGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 390

698 S.W.2d 390

Dennis Michael McCAMBRIDGE, Appellant, v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-84-0507-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas Houston (1st Dist.).

Aug. 29, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1985.

Discretionary Review Granted Nov. 13, 1985.

Gary Trichter, Nelson & Mallett, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Harris County Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Jon Munier, Harris County Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, for appellee.

Before EVANS, C.J., and COHEN and DUNN, JJ.

OPINION

EVANS, Chief Justice.

After a non-jury trial, the court found appellant guilty of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at six months confinement, probated for two years, and a $200 fine.

The appellant filed a motion to suppress the results of the video-tape made and a breath-alcohol test taken at the time of his arrest in May 1984.After hearing the motion, the trial court suppressed the audio portion of the video-tape, but denied the motion to suppress the results of the breath test.Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the appellant then waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty before the court.

In three grounds of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the breath test, arguing that: (1) it was obtained in violation of his right to assistance of counsel; (2)he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily consent to the test; and (3) it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, because the police continued to interrogate him after he requested counsel.

As a threshold matter, the state contends that there is nothing before this Court for review, because the record does not contain a transcription of the hearing on appellant's guilty plea.The state argues that we must assume that there was some evidence presented, in addition to the breath test, that would support a conviction.It asserts that the absence of a statement of facts on the guilty-plea hearing distinguishes this case from, and makes inapplicable, Isam v. State, 582 S.W.2d 441(Tex.Crim.App.1979), which held that an appellant may challenge an adverse ruling on his motion to suppress even though he later pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charges against him.We find the state's distinction unpersuasive and overrule its contention.In Isam, the Court of Criminal Appeals expressly held that a defendant may seek appellate review of the denial of a pre-trial motion, despite the fact that he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charged.Id. at 444.

We first consider the appellant's contention that his motion to suppress should have been granted, because he was deprived of his right to assistance of counsel.In support of this contention, appellant cites the recent decision of Forte v. State, 686 S.W.2d 744(Tex.App.--Fort Worth1985, pet. pending), which held that an accused had a limited right to assistance of counsel before having to decide whether to take or to refuse a breath test.The court concluded that this was a critical stage of the criminal pretrial proceedings and that the accused had the right to consult with a lawyer, provided that the consultation did not unreasonably delay the administration of the test.The appellant also refers to decisions of several federal courts and of other state courts that have expressly or impliedly recognized the right to counsel in such proceedings.See, e.g., State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436, 610 P.2d 893, vacated on other grounds, 449 U.S. 977, 101 S.Ct. 390, 66 L.Ed.2d 240(1980);State v. Welch, 135 Vt. 316, 376 A.2d 351(1977).

The appellant was arrested about 11 p.m., while he was driving alone and on his way home.As he was being placed in the police car at the arrest location, he asked for the assistance of a lawyer.The arresting officers replied that he could not have a lawyer until he got downtown.He was then taken to the central police station and placed in an interrogation room.Once there, the officers informed him of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.The appellant again asked for a lawyer and was allowed to use the telephone.

The appellant called his wife with instructions to contact an attorney, but he was told by the officers that he could not give out a telephone number for any return calls.After this abortive attempt to obtain counsel, the appellant was questioned by the officers, despite his requests that he wanted a lawyer present during the interrogation.He was allowed to telephone a second time, but this time he obtained only a busy signal.The police then continued their questioning.Appellant testified that each time he attempted to invoke his constitutional rights, the officer's attitude and tone of voice became increasingly hostile.The video interview ended abruptly, and the appellant was then taken out into the hallway, where another policeman tried to persuade him to take the breath-alcohol test.The appellant testified that he finally acquiesced and took the breath test.

A person who operates a motor vehicle on a public highway, and who is arrested for driving while intoxicated, is statutorily "deemed" to have consented to the taking of breath or blood specimens for determining the presence of alcohol concentration in the body.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701l-5, sec. 1(VernonSupp.1985).The statute also defines the term "intoxicated" as meaning (a) that a person does not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances into the body; or (b) that there is a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent or more.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701l-1(a)(2)(VernonSupp.1985).

The statute provides that the specimen must be taken at the request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving while intoxicated, and that if the arrested person refuses the peace officer's request, a specimen shall not be taken.Art. 6701l-5, sec. 2(a).The peace officer must inform the arrested person orally and in writing that if the request for a specimen is refused, such refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution and that the person's driver's license will be automatically suspended for 90 days, whether or not the person is subsequently prosecuted as a result of the arrest.Art. 6701l-5, sec. 2(b).

The United States Supreme Court has long upheld statutes that deem drivers to have waived certain constitutional rights as a condition of receiving a state license to drive a motor vehicle.For example, in Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091(1927), the Court upheld an implied-consent law that appointed a state officer as agent for service of process upon any non-resident driver who operated a motor vehicle on a public road.The Court found that the state's highway regulatory power included the power to require a driver to appoint an agent in advance of the operation of a motor vehicle on its highways, and thus, the state could declare the use of its highways to be the equivalent of such an appointment.Id. at 356-57, 47 S.Ct. at 633-34.See alsoBreithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 435 n. 2, 77 S.Ct. 408, 410 n. 2, 1 L.Ed.2d 448(1957).

We reject appellant's contention that he had a constitutional right to refuse to submit to the breath test.In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908(1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects only "testimonial" communications.The results of blood alcohol-content tests, made from blood samples drawn from the defendant without his consent, were held to be admissible at trial, because such samples were not testimonial communications within the protection of the fifth amendment.The Court rejected claims that the procedure denied the suspect due process of law under the fourteenth amendment, violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment, and denied his right to counsel under the sixth amendment.The Court's rejection of the right to counsel claim is especially pertinent.It held:

Since the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner's testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on [self-incrimination] privilege grounds.

This conclusion also answers petitioner's claim that, in compelling him to submit to the test in face of the fact that his objection was made on the advice of counsel, he was denied his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel.Since petitioner was not entitled to assert the [self-incrimination] privilege, he has no greater right because counsel erroneously advised him that he could assert it.His claim is strictly limited to the failure of the police to respect his wish, reinforced by counsel's advice, to be left inviolate.No issue of counsel's ability to assist petitioner in respect of any rights he did possess is presented.The limited claim thus made must be rejected.

Id. at 765-66, 86 S.Ct. at 1832-33(emphasis added).Finally, in South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748(1983), the Court held that evidence at trial of the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample did not violate the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has found the scope of the Texas constitutional privilege against self-incrimination to be identical to that of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.Olson v. State, 484 S.W.2d 756(Tex.Crim.App.1969).It has also expressly recognized the holding of Schmerber that only testimonial communication is constitutionally protected.Turpin v. State, 606 S.W.2d 907, 913-14(Tex.Crim.App.1980)(en banc).

In Rodriguez v....