By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Trial claim of confession involuntariness does
not preserve processing office claim for appeal (00-1-11)
On December 23, 1999, the Houston First
District Court of Appeals held that a claim of confession involuntariness in a
motion to suppress evidence did not preserve for appeal a claim that the
confession was inadmissible because police failed to take the respondent to a
juvenile processing office.
00-1-11. Cordova v. State, UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-96-00848-CR, 1999 WL 1240930,
1999 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 12/23/99)[Texas Juvenile
Law 286 (4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: Appellant, Frank Raymond Cordova, a juvenile, was indicted for capital
murder for the shooting death of Jerry Rayborn during an attempted robbery. The
juvenile court waived jurisdiction and certified Cordova to stand trial as an
adult. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Cordova pled guilty, and the charge was
reduced to murder. On the State's recommendation, the trial court assessed
Cordova's punishment at 50 years in prison. This appeal challenges the trial
court's ruling on Cordova's motion to suppress his confession.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: In his sole point of error, Cordova asserts that the trial court
erred in overruling the motion to suppress his confession, because his
confession violated Texas Family Code Sections 52.02 and 52.025. Cordova
contends that the police (1) failed to take him to either a juvenile processing
facility or the magistrate without unreasonable delay; (2) during his
interrogation, failed to secure him in an office or room designated as a
juvenile processing office; and (3) failed to notify his parents that he had
been arrested and was being interrogated.
Cordova's written motion to suppress filed in the trial court stated as follows:
Defendant would show that the written statement was not given voluntarily in
that defendant was in physical pain and discomfort at the time of interrogation
and was subjected to a hostile and coercive environment. These circumstances
combined to deprive defendant of proper exercise of his Fifth Amendment Rights
and render the statement inadmissible.
Appellant's trial court motion to suppress his confession does not comport with
his complaint on appeal. Further, appellant did not make any other objection
during the hearing on the motion to suppress.
In order for an issue to be preserved on appeal, there must be a timely
objection that specifically states the legal basis for the objection in the
trial court. An objection preserves only the specific ground cited. Tex.R.App.P.
33.1; Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). An objection
stating one legal basis may not be used to support a different legal theory on
appeal. Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 533 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). A complaint
made on appeal must comport with the complaint made in the trial court, or the
error is waived. Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).
Cordova did not present his objection based on violations of the Family Code to
the trial court; therefore, that objection was waived and was not preserved for
our review.