Eduardo Leme De Oliveira v. State ( 2013 )

NUMBER 13-12-00106-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EDUARDO LEME DE OLIVEIRA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 389th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
Appellant, Eduardo Leme de Oliveira, was convicted of murder, a first-degree
felony, and was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §
19.02(b)(1) (West 2011). On appeal, he argues that the trial court reversibly erred by
(1) admitting evidence of his written statement to police; and (2) excluding, during the
sentencing phase, evidence of sentences received by his accomplices. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2008, Hidalgo County Sheriff’s deputies discovered a dead body
laying face down next to a car near an abandoned building in Mission, Texas. A cell
phone and four ten-millimeter bullet casings were found next to the body. Police
learned that the deceased matched a recently-filed missing person report, and they
identified the deceased as Juan Antonio Morales.
Investigators contacted Morales’s daughter, Vianca, who lived in an apartment
with Morales, Morales’s girlfriend Julissa Gonzalez, and Gonzalez’s friend Enedelia
Canales. Vianca reported that Morales had left Texas in July 2008 to work in
Washington state. He came back to Texas in October 2008 but planned to return to
Washington before long.
Vianca testified that she last saw her father when she went with him and other
family members to see a movie. According to Vianca, Morales twice stepped outside
during the movie to talk on his phone. When he returned to the theater, Morales told
Vianca that a woman had called and told him that there was a man bothering Gonzalez.
Morales gave Vianca a phone number and told Vianca to give the number to police if
anything happened to him. Police later determined that the last calls made from the cell
phone recovered at the scene of Morales’s death were to that phone number, and the
account associated with that phone number belonged to Gonzalez.
Gonzalez informed Investigator Francisco Mora that the phone was registered in
her name but that it was being used, and paid for, by her friend Canales. Investigator
Mora located Canales and confirmed that she was in possession of the phone. He also
2
determined that the calls displayed on Canales’s phone matched those displayed on
Morales’s phone.
Gonzalez and Canales were subsequently arrested for Morales’s murder. At
trial, Gonzalez conceded that she began a sexual relationship with Canales while she
was still dating Morales. When Morales went to work in Washington, Gonzalez and
Canales spent “almost 24 hours” together every day. When Gonzalez told Canales that
Morales was returning to Texas, Canales became “jealous” and “upset about the way
he would treat [Gonzalez].” Gonzalez stated that both Morales and Canales were “very
jealous” people and that Morales would hit her “on some occasions.” Gonzalez testified
that Canales once suggested that “something should happen” to Morales—“mean[ing]
something like beat him up”—but that Canales did not plan to kill Morales. She
admitted on cross-examination, however, that Canales did “make a comment” which
Gonzalez “thought . . . referred to killing [Morales].” Specifically, Canales said: “I know
a guy who knows how to teach [Morales] to respect women.”
On October 11, 2008, Morales called Gonzalez at work and was “very upset” with
her. Morales told Gonzalez that a woman had called him and told him that, while he
was in Washington, Gonzalez cheated on him with another man. She later learned that
it was Canales who had called Morales to tell him this. Later that evening, Gonzalez
informed Canales about her conversation with Morales, and Canales told Gonzalez “not
to worry, that [Morales] was never going to bother [Gonzalez] again.” Gonzalez
testified: “I asked her what she meant, and she said that he was already dead.”
According to Gonzalez, Canales also “told me that if the police asked me if I knew
anything, that I was supposed to say that I didn’t know anything.”
3
Later that night, Gonzalez visited Canales at her mobile home because she was
“very scared . . . [b]ecause of the police.” She asked Canales what happened, and
Canales said “[t]hat a guy shot [Morales] that night.”
Canales testified that Gonzalez had told her that Morales once pointed a gun at
her; it was at that point that Canales decided “that he needed to be gone . . . [t]o die.”
Canales claimed she was unable to kill Morales herself—“I can’t. It’s not right.” She
apparently had no similar moral qualms, however, about hiring someone else to do the
job. Canales testified:
I was at work. I was frustrated, having a bad day, and this guy, he asked
me what was wrong with me. I tried to tell him nothing because we
weren’t really, like, best friends. . . . But he kept asking, and I finally told
him what was wrong. . . . That someone that I loved was being
abused. . . . And it was making me sad. . . . [The man] told me that if I
wanted him to do it, he would kill him.
Canales identified Oliveira as the man who offered to kill Morales. She stated that she
first thought Oliveira was joking and she ignored him, but Oliveira gave her his cell
phone number. She thought about it for “[m]aybe a week or two.” She talked to
Gonzalez about it, and Gonzalez said “she didn’t want me to get in trouble, that I didn’t
have to do it.” Nevertheless, Canales decided that she would go ahead with the
murder. She called Oliveira and arranged to meet at a restaurant. She showed Oliveira
a picture of Morales and said “that was the guy.” Oliveira did not ask for money or
anything else in return.
When Canales got off of work on October 11, 2008, she called Oliveira and told
him she “wanted him to do it.” Oliveira instructed Canales to arrange a meeting with
Morales and then pick Oliveira up. Canales called Morales using a phone that
Gonzalez had given to her. Morales agreed to meet Canales at his apartment, and
4
Canales then picked up Oliveira, who brought a gun. When Canales and Oliveira
arrived at Morales’s apartment, there were people around, including kids, so they called
it off. But Canales called Morales back, this time posing as the wife of a man who was
having an affair with Gonzalez. She asked Morales to meet in front of an “old store” on
Schuerbach Road. When they arrived, Canales was in the driver’s seat of the car and
Oliveira was hiding in the front passenger’s seat. Morales then drove up and got out of
his car. Canales thought Morales was holding a gun in his hand. When Morales
approached Canales’s car, Oliveira leaned over and shot Morales in the chest. When
Canales began to drive away, Oliveira shot Morales “at least two” more times.
Canales was contacted by police and became concerned that she and Gonzalez
would get in trouble. She decided to create an anonymous letter threatening Morales—
using cut-up clippings from magazines and latex gloves to prevent fingerprints—and to
leave it at Gonzalez’s apartment in order to make it appear that Gonzalez was not
involved in Morales’s murder.
Investigator Mora testified that, after Canales was arrested, he searched
Oliveira’s ranch. He located a small empty box which had been used to store ten-
millimeter ammunition. The box was not tested for fingerprints. No weapon or any
projectiles or spent casings were found at the ranch at that time. Years later, however,
in September 2011, a ten-millimeter Glock handgun was found on Oliveira’s ranch. The
gun was missing its barrel and was not operable. However, it matched the type and
caliber of weapon used in Morales’s murder.
Oliveira’s then-girlfriend, Alejandra Garcia, testified that Oliveira once told her
that he “wanted to have a relationship with two women.” She took that to mean that he
5
wanted to have a sexual relationship with two women at the same time. She stated that
she thought he was joking. After October 12, 2008, Oliveira spoke to Garcia on the
phone and told her that she “shouldn’t believe everything they say about me.” Patricia
Ramos and her husband Jesus Ramos, both friends of Oliveira, testified that Oliveira
had once expressed interest in buying a weapon for self-protection at his ranch.
Canales pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, Morales’s murder. Gonzalez
was convicted of manslaughter. On March 11, 2011, Oliveira was arrested in
Monterrey, Mexico and was extradited to the United States. He gave a statement to
Hidalgo County Sheriff’s deputies on March 23, 2011. At trial, two documents were
admitted into evidence over Oliveira’s objections: (1) a Spanish-language form, initialed
and signed by Oliveira, which set forth his statutory Miranda rights, see TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 2 (West 2005); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and
(2) an English-language written statement, which also included a statement of Oliveira’s
Miranda rights and an express waiver thereof, in which Oliveira set forth his version of
events.
In his statement, Oliveira claimed that Canales initially asked him if he would “kill
for money.” According to the statement, Oliveira was “shocked” by Canales’s request
and said no. About a month later, he met with Canales again, and she showed him a
brown paper bag containing a gun and ammunition. Canales asked Oliveira to
“accompany her,” without specifying where, and he agreed. They drove to a “small little
house” that was abandoned. Another car arrived shortly thereafter. A man stepped out
of the other car and started walking towards Canales and Oliveira’s vehicle. According
to Oliveira’s statement, when the man came close, Canales shot him several times.
6
Oliveira did not tell anyone about the shooting.
The jury, which had been instructed on the accomplice witness rule, see TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West 2005), and the law of parties, see TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 7.02(a) (West 2011), found Oliveira guilty of murder. At the sentencing
phase, Oliveira sought to introduce evidence of the indictments and judgments in
Gonzalez’s and Canales’s criminal cases. The State objected, and the trial court held a
hearing outside the jury’s presence, after which it sustained the objection and excluded
the evidence. The jury assessed punishment at 25 years’ imprisonment and a $5,000
fine. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Admissibility of Written Statement
1. Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated
standard of review. St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720, 725 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
(citing Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). We “afford almost
total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record
supports especially when the trial court’s fact findings are based on an evaluation of
credibility and demeanor.” Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997). We “afford the same amount of deference to trial courts’ rulings on ‘application
of law to fact questions,’ also known as ‘mixed questions of law and fact,’ if the
resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and
demeanor.” Id. On the other hand, we conduct a de novo review of evidence when the
resolution of mixed questions of law and fact do not turn on an evaluation of credibility
7
and demeanor. St. George, 237 S.W.3d at 725 (citing Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89).
We review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dixon,
206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “We view the record in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s conclusion and reverse the judgment only if it is outside the
zone of reasonable disagreement.” Id. The trial court’s ruling will be upheld if it “is
reasonably supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the
case.” Id. (citing Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)).
2. Applicable Law
Article 38.22, section 2 of the code of criminal procedure provides that “[n]o
written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is
admissible as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the
face of the statement” that:
(a) the accused, prior to making the statement, either received from a
magistrate the warning provided in Article 15.17 of this code or
received from the person to whom the statement is made a warning
that:
(1) he has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at
all and that any statement he makes may be used against him
at his trial;
(2) any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him
in court;
(3) he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to
and during any questioning;
(4) if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a
lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during any
questioning; and
(5) he has the right to terminate the interview at any time[1]; and
1
With the exception of number five, these are the same warnings as required under Miranda.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).
8
(b) the accused, prior to and during the making of the statement,
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the rights set out in the
warning prescribed by Subsection (a) of this section.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 2. The accused must be administered the
warnings specified above “or their fully effective equivalent” in order for the statement to
be admissible. Id. § 3(e)(2).
3. Analysis
During trial, a hearing was held on the admissibility of Oliveira’s written statement
to police. At the hearing, Leonor Garcia, then an investigator with the Hidalgo County
Sheriff’s Office, testified that she conducted a custodial interview of Oliveira in Spanish.2
She stated that she advised Oliveira of his Miranda/article 38.22 rights, that Oliveira
indicated his agreement to waive those rights, and that he then agreed to provide a
statement. State’s Exhibit 34, a form containing the statutory Miranda warnings in
Spanish, was entered into evidence over Oliveira’s objection. The form shows that
Oliveira initialed each of the five enumerated warnings and signed the document.
Garcia acknowledged on cross-examination, however, that this warning form did not
contain an express waiver of rights. Rather, it merely advised Oliveira of his rights and
asked if he understood them.
Oliveira proceeded to give an oral statement to Garcia, who then typed up
Oliveira’s words and prepared a written statement. The written statement set forth
Oliveira’s statutory Miranda rights, which he initialed, and it contained an express waiver
2
Garcia stated that, although Oliveira is originally from Brazil and cannot read written Spanish,
she read his rights aloud and he knew enough Spanish to understand her and to communicate with her.
On cross-examination, Garcia agreed with Oliveira’s counsel’s suggestion that “he does not read
Spanish, although he’s fluent in the Spanish language.”
9
of those rights.3 The written statement was introduced into evidence over Oliveira’s
objection as State’s Exhibit 35.
On appeal, Oliveira contends that: (1) the warning form did not satisfy article
38.22 because it did not contain an express waiver; and (2) the express waiver of rights
contained in his written statement was ineffective because it was executed after Oliveira
had given his oral statement. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 2(b)
(stating that a written custodial statement must show on its face that the accused
waived his rights “prior to and during the making of the statement”).4
In response, the State argues that article 38.22 does not require an express
statement from the accused that he waived his rights. See Barefield v. State, 784
S.W.2d 38, 40–41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Zimmerman v.
State, 860 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Indeed, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that a waiver need not assume a particular form and, in some cases,
“can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated.” Joseph
v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20, 24–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing North Carolina v. Butler,
441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475). The State urges that an implied
waiver may be established if it is shown that the accused was warned of his rights and
3
The express waiver stated: “And prior to and during the making of this statement, I knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily waive those rights set forth in this document and have [sic] knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights, I do hereby make the following free and voluntary
statement.”
4
As noted, Oliveira’s written statement asserts that Canales planned and carried out the murder
and that Oliveira was merely tangentially involved. Nevertheless, he asserts that he was harmed by the
admission of the statement because, without it, there would be only “meager circumstantial evidence” to
corroborate Canales’s and Gonzalez’s testimony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West
2005) (“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other
evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not
sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2 (regarding harmless
error in criminal cases). We need not determine whether Oliveira was harmed by the admission of his
written statement, however, because of our conclusion herein that the trial court did not err in admitting
the statement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
10
understood the warnings, and yet proceeded to make a statement. See Murphy v.
State, 100 S.W.3d 317, 322 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d) (holding that a
waiver, though not explicit, was voluntary and knowing where there was “no evidence
indicating [appellant’s] will was overborne or his capacity for self-determination was
significantly impaired because of coercive police conduct” or that appellant “exhibited
any behavior which might suggest he did not understand his rights”). According to the
State, the fact that Oliveira was warned of his statutory rights and understood them, and
yet proceeded with the interview, implies that he waived those rights.
We decline to follow the State’s reasoning. The cases cited by the State for the
proposition that no express waiver is required involved the admissibility of recorded oral
statements, not written statements. See Barefield, 784 S.W.2d at 40 (“video taped
confessions”); Joseph, 309 S.W.3d at 22 (“DVD recording of [appellant’s] interview”). 5
Unlike written statements, which are governed by section 2 of article 38.22, recorded
oral statements are governed by section 3 of that article. Crucially, section 2 requires
that it be “shown on the face of the statement” that, among other things, “the accused,
prior to and during the making of the statement, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waived” his rights; whereas section 3 requires only that “prior to the statement but
during the recording the accused is given the warning . . . above and the accused
5
Murphy v. State did involve the admissibility of a written statement. 100 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d). However, there was no dispute in that case as to whether the
statement contained an express waiver as required by section 2 of article 38.22; the issue was whether
that waiver was unconstitutionally coerced. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 2 (West 2005);
Murphy, 100 S.W.3d at 322 (“Murphy argues his waiver was compelled because he waived his rights only
after authorities misled him to believe they had sufficient grounds to arrest him for murder.”). The
appellant in Murphy did argue in a separate point that his written statement failed to comply with article
38.22, but only on the grounds that the statement “does not reflect he received the warning provided in
Article 15.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.” Murphy, 100 S.W.3d at 320–21. The court
rejected that challenge, noting that “a defendant needs to be warned pursuant to Article 15.17 only if he
receives his warnings from a magistrate,” which was not the case there. Id. at 321 (citing TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 2(a)). Murphy, therefore, says nothing about whether a written statement
may be admissible in the absence of any express waiver at all.
11
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives any rights set out in the warning.” TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, §§ 2, 3. That is, section 2 requires that a written
statement be accompanied by an express waiver, but section 3 does not require that a
oral statement be accompanied by an express waiver. The case law indicating that an
express waiver is not required therefore applies only to oral statements. Cf. Joseph,
309 S.W.3d at 28 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (“We held in Barefield that Article 38.22
[section] 3 did not require an express waiver of rights.”). Here, the challenged evidence
was a written statement; accordingly, we apply the plain meaning of section 2 of article
38.22 and conclude that an express waiver appearing on the face of the statement is
necessary for the statement to be admitted into evidence. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 38.22, § 2.
Though we do not adopt the reasoning employed by the State, we find that
Oliveira’s written statement did contain an effective express waiver on its face, and so
we agree with the State that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
statement. As noted, Oliveira’s written statement, admitted as State’s Exhibit 35, set
forth the statutory Miranda warnings and contained an explicit statement that “prior to
and during the making of this statement, I knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive
those rights set forth in this document . . . .” The warnings and the express waiver
appear at the top of the document and Oliveira’s typewritten narrative appears below.
Oliveira argues that the express waiver was ineffective because he signed it only after
he gave his initial oral statement. But the oral statement was not recorded and was not
offered as evidence; only the written statement was. And it is undisputed that the
written statement was preceded by an express waiver of rights as required by statute.
12
Moreover, the court of criminal appeals has held, in a case where the appellant
contended that Miranda warnings should have been given before he began an
unrecorded interrogation that led to a written statement, that “giving the required
warnings before the accused signs the statement meets the statutory requirements”
“because a written statement is not ‘obtained’ (because it is not admissible) until it is
signed.” Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 258–59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing
Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146, 157–58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)).
Oliveira’s first issue is overruled.
B. Admissibility of Co-Defendants’ Sentences
By his second issue, Oliveira contends that the trial court erred in excluding, at
the sentencing phase, evidence of indictments issued and sentences imposed in the
criminal cases of Gonzalez and Canales.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07, regarding evidence admissible
at a trial’s sentencing phase, states:
Regardless of the plea and whether the punishment be assessed by the
judge or the jury, evidence may be offered by the state and the defendant
as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including but not
limited to the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation,
his character, an opinion regarding his character, the circumstances of the
offense for which he is being tried, and, notwithstanding Rules 404 and
405, Texas Rules of Evidence, any other evidence of an extraneous crime
or bad act that is shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have
been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally
responsible, regardless of whether he has previously been charged with or
finally convicted of the crime or act.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (West 2006). We review a trial court’s
decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Shuffield
v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (internal citations omitted). “If the
13
trial court’s decision was within the bounds of reasonable disagreement, the appellate
court should not disturb its ruling.” Id.
Oliveira argues that the sentences received by Gonzalez and Canales for their
participation in Morales’s murder were relevant to Oliveira’s sentencing because they
represent part of “the circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried . . . .” See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1). We disagree. In Joubert v. State, the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered whether the trial court erred by excluding,
at the punishment phase, evidence that the appellant’s co-defendant received a thirty-
year sentence as part of a plea bargain. 235 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The Court concluded that “[a] co-defendant’s conviction and punishment have no
bearing on a defendant's own personal moral culpability.” Id. (citing Morris v. State, 940
S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (“[E]vidence of a co-defendant’s conviction and
punishment is not included among the mitigating circumstances which a defendant has
a right to present.”)); see Evans v. State, 656 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)
(“We do not see how the conviction and punishment of a co-defendant could mitigate
appellant's culpability in the crime. Each defendant should be judged by his own
conduct and participation and by his own circumstances.”). The Court stated that “such
punishments ‘relate[] neither to appellant’s character, nor to his record, nor to the
circumstances of the offense.’” Joubert, 235 S.W.3d at 735 (quoting Morris, 940
S.W.2d at 613). The fact that Gonzalez and Canales testified against Oliveira at trial
does not alter this central holding. We conclude that the trial court’s decision to exclude
evidence of Gonzalez’s and Canales’s indictments and sentences was within the
bounds of reasonable disagreement. See Shuffield, 189 S.W.3d at 793.
14
Oliveira’s second issue is overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
21st day of February, 2013.
15