Daniel Travis Durham v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Daniel Travis Durham v. State

DecidedAugust 23, 2018

Docket14-18-00152-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Daniel Travis Durham v. State (Daniel Travis Durham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Travis Durham v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed August 23, 2018

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-18-00152-CR ____________

DANIEL TRAVIS DURHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1433944

ABATEMENT ORDER The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement but did submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of the statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 § 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Appellant asks us to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. The motion has been pending for more than 10 days, and no response has been filed.

The motion is GRANTED. The trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this court by September 24, 2018.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed August 23, 2018

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-18-00152-CR ____________

DANIEL TRAVIS DURHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1433944

ABATEMENT ORDER The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement but did submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of the statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 § 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Appellant asks us to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. The motion has been pending for more than 10 days, and no response has been filed.

The motion is GRANTED. The trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this court by September 24, 2018.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel Travis Durham v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-travis-durham-v-state-texapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack