David Scott Rose v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00209-CR
__________________
DAVID SCOTT ROSE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 27535 (4 Counts)
__________________________________________________________________
ORDER
In a single issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in
failing to suppress the video statement of his oral statement to law enforcement
where he challenged the voluntariness of the statement, and in failing to give a jury
instruction under Articles 38.22 and 38.23. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.
38.22, 38.23.
In Appellant’s motion to suppress in the trial court, he argued that “[a]ny
statement defendant might have made was involuntary, and in violation of the 5th
1
and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, of article
I § 10 of the Texas Constitution, and of articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure.” After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The record
does not reflect that either party requested written findings, and none were made.
Section 6 of Article 38.22 requires written findings when the voluntariness of
a confession is litigated and the trial court finds the confession to be voluntary and
admissible. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP-77,081, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS
844, at *33 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 7, 2022). The statute requires written findings
even if they were not requested by the parties because “‘written findings are required
in all cases concerning voluntariness’” and “‘[t]he statute has no exceptions.’” See
id. (quoting Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)). On
appeal, Appellant does not challenge the failure of the trial court to make written
findings. That said, we note the wording of the statute requires such findings.
Therefore, we abate the appeal and remand this case for the trial court to make
written findings in compliance with Article 38.22. See Sandoval v. State, No. AP-
77,081, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 114, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 2,
2022); see also Sandoval, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 844, at **33-34. The trial
court shall forward its findings within 30 days from the date of this order. The appeal
will be reinstated upon our receipt of the trial court’s findings.
ORDER ENTERED December 15, 2022.
PER CURIAM
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, J.J.
2