Gerald Dewayne Butler v. State ( 2010 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-09-00155-CR
______________________________
GERALD DEWAYNE BUTLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 36302-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gerald DeWayne Butler was convicted of aggravated robbery in four separate
prosecutions, for multiple robberies of different victims, occurring on three different dates.
Those convictions are all presently before this Court on appeal. A fifth robbery involving a
shooting was prosecuted earlier, and that conviction was appealed to this Court. (All five
robberies occurred during the span of six weeks.) Our opinion affirming the conviction on the
fifth robbery issued on November 12, 2009.1 By agreement with the State and the trial judge,
issues that were litigated in the first prosecution concerning a pretrial motion to suppress could
also be brought forward as issues in his four current appeals.
In this case, Butler appeals from his conviction on his plea of guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement that granted him the right of appeal from pretrial hearings. He was convicted of
aggravated robbery, with a deadly weapon finding, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment,
to run consecutively with his other convictions.
Butler raises three points on appeal wherein he alleges: (1) the court erred by denying his
motion to suppress evidence; (2) the court erred by not suppressing his confession based on the
violation of his right to exculpatory evidence under Brady 2 ; and (3) the court erred by not
suppressing his confession on constitutional grounds because he was not advised that he was being
recorded.
1
Butler v. State, 300 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 2009, pet. ref’d, untimely filed).
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2
Because the issues raised in each appeal, and the facts underlying each appeal are identical,
for the reasons stated in our opinion dated this day in Butler v. State, cause number
06-09-00150-CR, we likewise in this appeal affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Josh R. Morriss III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 6, 2010
Date Decided: July 20, 2010
Do Not Publish
3