Justin Cobb v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 22, 2004
• Docket: 06-03-00255-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00255-CR

JUSTIN PAUL COBB, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 03M1552-CCL

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Appellant, Justin Paul Cobb, moves this Court to dismiss his appeal. As authorized by Tex. R. App. P. 42.2, we grant his motion.

            Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          January 21, 2004

Date Decided:             January 22, 2004

Do Not Publish

700-01  (Tex.  App.--Waco  1988,  no  pet.).  The  circumstances  surrounding  Waxler's September 7 and 11 meetings with Spivey suggest Waxler was not under arrest or otherwise in state custody at that time, nor can we glean any suggestion to the contrary from the record before us. ⁽²⁾ Accordingly, the strictures of Article 38.22 neither applied during Waxler's meetings with Spivey nor prohibited the trial court's consideration of any statements made during these noncustodial events.

We overrule Waxler's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Date Submitted: April 28, 2008

Date Decided: May 16, 2008

1. Semora is currently serving a probated sentence for burglary.

2.

"At trial, the defendant bears the initial burden of proving that a statement was the product of 'custodial interrogation.'" Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520, 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The record in this case shows Waxler brought forth no evidence that even begins to suggest the conditions surrounding his meeting with Spivey created a custodial environment requiring Miranda warnings or compliance with Article 38.22. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).