Ramos v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. PD-0921-06.,PD-0921-06. |
| Citation | 245 S.W.3d 410 |
| Parties | Mark Anthony RAMOS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jay Brandon, San Antonio, for Appellant.
Mary Beth Welsh, Asst. Criminal District Atty., San Antonio, Jeffrey L. Van Horn, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress and admitted his written statement in evidence over his objection that it had been obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The court of appeals upheld the trial court's ruling and its judgment of conviction. We reverse and remand.
On February 11, 2004, a Bexar County grand jury returned an indictment charging appellant with the murder of Tracy Ortiz under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1)-(3). Appellant later filed a pretrial motion to suppress a written statement that he had given to police shortly after he had been taken into custody. In that motion, which consisted entirely of boilerplate with no specifics, appellant alleged that his statement had been the product of custodial interrogation and that it was inadmissible in court because, among other things: (1) it had been given after he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and (2) it had been the fruit of an "illegal seizure."
On July 19, 2004, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on appellant's motion to suppress. At that hearing, the State called two witnesses (Troy Ragland and Tim Angell) and appellant called two witnesses (Becky Muniz and Mary Muniz). Troy Ragland testified that: (1) he was a police officer in the San Antonio Police Department; (2) on November 19-20, 2003, he assisted Detective John Slaughter in the investigation of a drive-by shooting that had occurred on Delgado Street in San Antonio; (3) in the course of the investigation, Slaughter directed him to locate appellant, who was known to be a member of a street gang; (4) during his efforts to locate appellant, he received information that appellant might be residing with his sister, Becky Muniz; (5) pursuant to that information, he and several other police officers went to Becky Muniz's residence shortly before 1:00 a.m. on November 20, 2003; (6) upon their arrival, they searched the residence, with Becky Muniz's permission, but they did not find appellant; (7) the other police officers then left, but he remained behind in the hope that appellant might soon arrive; (8) about thirty minutes later, appellant did arrive at the Muniz residence; (9) he asked appellant to go to the downtown police station to answer some questions "about an incident that [had] happened on Delgado," and appellant voluntarily agreed to do so; (10) he then handcuffed appellant, put him in the back of a patrol car that he had summoned by radio, and had him transported to the downtown police station; and (11) upon appellant's arrival at the downtown police station, police officers removed his handcuffs and placed him in an interview room.
Tim Angell testified that: (1) he was a detective in the San Antonio Police Department; (2) during the early morning hours of November 20, 2003, Detective John Slaughter asked him to question appellant about a recent drive-by shooting; (3) Slaughter informed him at that time that appellant "was possibly the shooter"; (4) he questioned appellant in an interview room; (5) he and appellant were alone in that room; (6) Slaughter was, at that same time, questioning appellant's girlfriend, Camelle Gallegos, in a separate room; (7) before he questioned appellant, he told him that he was not under arrest; (8) he also explained appellant's Miranda rights1 to him, and appellant indicated that he understood those rights; (9) he then asked appellant whether he would answer some questions concerning a drive-by shooting, and appellant said that he would; (10) during the first part of the questioning, appellant "denied any involvement in [the drive-by shooting] or knowledge about it," and provided an alibi; (11) after about 45 minutes, he (i.e., Angell) left the interview room to speak again with Slaughter; and (12) "[Slaughter then] advised [him] that Camelle Gallegos, whom he was interviewing and taking [a] statement from, indicated that she was in the vehicle [involved in the drive-by shooting] and that Mr. Ramos was the person that shot the weapon." Angell's testimony continued:
Becky Muniz testified that: (1) she was appellant's sister; (2) on the night of November 20, 2003, five or six San Antonio police officers came to her residence looking for appellant; (3) she consented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lampkin v. State
...warnings and obtain a waiver prior to custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of statements obtained.”); Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 418 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ). Custodial interrogation refers to “(1) express questioning and (2) ‘any words or actions on the part of the police (......
-
Williams v. Thaler, A-10-CA-979-SS
...a suspect "indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent." Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S. Ct. 1602). There is no talismanic word or phrase with which to invoke the ......
-
Hutchison v. State
...of rights by the accused. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602;see alsoTex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22; Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 418 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). It is uncontested Miranda or similar warnings were not provided in this case. Therefore, the question as to each state......
-
Hughen v. State, 06-07-00093-CR.
...of a desire to terminate the contact or inquiry will suffice, as will silence in the face of repeated questions. Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 418 (Tex. Courts have recognized, however, that an invocation of the right to counsel may be made separately pursuant to the Sixth Amendment right......
-
Confessions
...want to talk to him and doesn’t want to talk about it anymore, he has sufficiently invoked his right to remain silent. Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A suspect’s statement that he “didn’t see how he could help himself by talking to [officers],” has been found to be a......
-
Confessions
...want to talk to him and doesn’t want to talk about it anymore, he has sufficiently invoked his right to remain silent. Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A suspect’s statement that he “didn’t see how he could help himself by talking to [officers],” has been found to be a......
-
Confessions
...of Right to Remain Silent L ’ H 6-28 talk about it anymore, he has sufficiently invoked his right to remain silent. Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A suspect’s statement that he “didn’t see how he could help himself by talking to [officers],” has been found to be a su......
-
Confessions
...want to talk to him and doesn’t want to talk about it anymore, he has sufficiently invoked his right to remain silent. Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A suspect’s statement that he “didn’t see how he could help himself by talking to [officers],” has been found to be a......