IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00200-CR
LOGAN PENADELA, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 24080
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Logan PenaDeLa pleaded guilty to the
offense of bribery. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 36.02 (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred
the adjudication of guilt and placed PenaDeLa on community supervision for three
years. We affirm.
Background Facts
PenaDeLa was a prison guard for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
PenaDeLa and another prison guard, Zachary Kyle Hollis, were suspected of smuggling contraband into the prison.1 Assistant Warden Lonnie Johnson testified at the hearing
on the motion to suppress that at approximately 10:00 p.m., he received a call at his
house about the alleged smuggling of contraband. Warden Johnson went to the unit
and spoke with the supervisor and later spoke to PenaDeLa as part of his
administrative investigation. Johnson first conducted a verbal interview with
PenaDeLa, and then Johnson asked PenaDeLa to write out his statement. Johnson
testified that he conducted only an administrative investigation concerning PenaDeLa’s
employment. Johnson did not give any warnings before PenaDeLa gave his statement.
Johnson testified that an administrator will call the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) if it appears that there may be cause for a criminal investigation.
Johnson called OIG and informed PenaDeLa that OIG would need to talk to him.
Investigator Brent Dorman with the OIG testified at the hearing that he received
a call at approximately 11:00 p.m. to go to the unit. Upon arriving at the unit, Dorman
spoke with Johnson about the alleged offense. Dorman read PenaDeLa his Miranda2
warnings before taking a statement from him. In addition to the traditional Miranda
warnings, Dorman also informed PenaDeLa of an additional right applicable to TDCJ
employees. That warning stated that PenaDeLa is a suspect in a criminal case and that
he would not be subject to employment discipline if he refused to waive his Miranda
rights. PenaDeLa signed the statement acknowledging that he received the warnings
and also acknowledging that he was not in custody. Dorman stated that PenaDeLa
1 Hollis was also charged in connection with the offense, and he also filed a motion to suppress his statement. The trial court held a joint hearing on the motions.
2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Penadela v. State Page 2 understood that he did not have to talk to Dorman. PenaDeLa was not in custody and
was free to terminate the interview. PenaDeLa gave a written statement to Dorman and
later was escorted off the unit.
PenaDeLa testified that he gave both an oral and written statement to Warden
Johnson. PenaDeLa stated that he felt he would be arrested if he did not give a
statement. PenaDeLa later gave a written statement to Investigator Dorman, and he
acknowledged that Dorman read him his rights. However, PenaDeLa testified that he
felt he was under arrest and not free to leave. PenaDeLa further testified that he did not
understand his additional right as a TDCJ employee that he could exercise his Miranda
rights without being disciplined by TDCJ. PenaDeLa testified on cross-examination
that he understood he was not in custody or under arrest. PenaDeLa stated that he
never asked to leave.
In his sole issue on appeal, PenaDeLa complains that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress his confession.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of
discretion. Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellate courts
must give great deference to the trial court's findings of historical facts as long as the
record supports the findings. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Because the trial court is the exclusive factfinder, the appellate court reviews evidence
adduced at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We also give deference to
Penadela v. State Page 3 the trial court's rulings on mixed questions of law and fact when those rulings turn on
an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 87. Where such
rulings do not turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, we review the trial
court's actions de novo. Id.
Garrity
PenaDeLa first complains that his confession is inadmissible under Garrity v.
State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In Garrity, police officers under investigation for
misconduct were warned before being questioned that they had the right to refuse to
answer questions, but that they would be subject to removal from office if they refused
to answer. Garrity, 385 U.S. at 494. The Court held that the 14th Amendment prohibits
the use of statements obtained under threat of removal from office in subsequent
criminal proceedings. Garrity, 385 U.S. at 500.
PenaDeLa argues that his statement to Warden Johnson was obtained under
threat of termination, and therefore, that statement and the subsequent statement made
to Investigator Dorman are both inadmissible. The TDCJ Rules of Conduct require
employees to cooperate with official investigations. PenaDeLa had a “general idea” of
the rules, but did not remember the rules in detail. PenaDeLa testified that he believed
he would be arrested if he did not give a statement to Warden Johnson and cooperate
with the investigation. PenaDeLa did not testify that he was told he would be
terminated if he refused to give a statement or that he believed he would be terminated
for refusing to give a statement. Investigator Dorman specifically informed PenaDeLa
Penadela v. State Page 4 that he would not be disciplined for exercising his Miranda rights. The record does not
support PenaDeLa’s argument that his statements are inadmissible under Garrity.
Custody
PenaDeLa next argues that his statements were given involuntarily because he
was in custody at the time he gave the statements. In determining whether an
individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding
the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest
or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tex.Crim.App.2010), cert. den’d, 2011 U.S. Lexis 441,
79 U.S.L.W. 3399 (U.S. January 10, 2011); Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254
(Tex.Crim.App.1996). An officer's views concerning the nature of an interrogation, or
beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned, may be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00200-CR
LOGAN PENADELA, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 24080
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Logan PenaDeLa pleaded guilty to the
offense of bribery. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 36.02 (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred
the adjudication of guilt and placed PenaDeLa on community supervision for three
years. We affirm.
Background Facts
PenaDeLa was a prison guard for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
PenaDeLa and another prison guard, Zachary Kyle Hollis, were suspected of smuggling contraband into the prison.1 Assistant Warden Lonnie Johnson testified at the hearing
on the motion to suppress that at approximately 10:00 p.m., he received a call at his
house about the alleged smuggling of contraband. Warden Johnson went to the unit
and spoke with the supervisor and later spoke to PenaDeLa as part of his
administrative investigation. Johnson first conducted a verbal interview with
PenaDeLa, and then Johnson asked PenaDeLa to write out his statement. Johnson
testified that he conducted only an administrative investigation concerning PenaDeLa’s
employment. Johnson did not give any warnings before PenaDeLa gave his statement.
Johnson testified that an administrator will call the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) if it appears that there may be cause for a criminal investigation.
Johnson called OIG and informed PenaDeLa that OIG would need to talk to him.
Investigator Brent Dorman with the OIG testified at the hearing that he received
a call at approximately 11:00 p.m. to go to the unit. Upon arriving at the unit, Dorman
spoke with Johnson about the alleged offense. Dorman read PenaDeLa his Miranda2
warnings before taking a statement from him. In addition to the traditional Miranda
warnings, Dorman also informed PenaDeLa of an additional right applicable to TDCJ
employees. That warning stated that PenaDeLa is a suspect in a criminal case and that
he would not be subject to employment discipline if he refused to waive his Miranda
rights. PenaDeLa signed the statement acknowledging that he received the warnings
and also acknowledging that he was not in custody. Dorman stated that PenaDeLa
1 Hollis was also charged in connection with the offense, and he also filed a motion to suppress his statement. The trial court held a joint hearing on the motions.
2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Penadela v. State Page 2 understood that he did not have to talk to Dorman. PenaDeLa was not in custody and
was free to terminate the interview. PenaDeLa gave a written statement to Dorman and
later was escorted off the unit.
PenaDeLa testified that he gave both an oral and written statement to Warden
Johnson. PenaDeLa stated that he felt he would be arrested if he did not give a
statement. PenaDeLa later gave a written statement to Investigator Dorman, and he
acknowledged that Dorman read him his rights. However, PenaDeLa testified that he
felt he was under arrest and not free to leave. PenaDeLa further testified that he did not
understand his additional right as a TDCJ employee that he could exercise his Miranda
rights without being disciplined by TDCJ. PenaDeLa testified on cross-examination
that he understood he was not in custody or under arrest. PenaDeLa stated that he
never asked to leave.
In his sole issue on appeal, PenaDeLa complains that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress his confession.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of
discretion. Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellate courts
must give great deference to the trial court's findings of historical facts as long as the
record supports the findings. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Because the trial court is the exclusive factfinder, the appellate court reviews evidence
adduced at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We also give deference to
Penadela v. State Page 3 the trial court's rulings on mixed questions of law and fact when those rulings turn on
an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 87. Where such
rulings do not turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor, we review the trial
court's actions de novo. Id.
Garrity
PenaDeLa first complains that his confession is inadmissible under Garrity v.
State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In Garrity, police officers under investigation for
misconduct were warned before being questioned that they had the right to refuse to
answer questions, but that they would be subject to removal from office if they refused
to answer. Garrity, 385 U.S. at 494. The Court held that the 14th Amendment prohibits
the use of statements obtained under threat of removal from office in subsequent
criminal proceedings. Garrity, 385 U.S. at 500.
PenaDeLa argues that his statement to Warden Johnson was obtained under
threat of termination, and therefore, that statement and the subsequent statement made
to Investigator Dorman are both inadmissible. The TDCJ Rules of Conduct require
employees to cooperate with official investigations. PenaDeLa had a “general idea” of
the rules, but did not remember the rules in detail. PenaDeLa testified that he believed
he would be arrested if he did not give a statement to Warden Johnson and cooperate
with the investigation. PenaDeLa did not testify that he was told he would be
terminated if he refused to give a statement or that he believed he would be terminated
for refusing to give a statement. Investigator Dorman specifically informed PenaDeLa
Penadela v. State Page 4 that he would not be disciplined for exercising his Miranda rights. The record does not
support PenaDeLa’s argument that his statements are inadmissible under Garrity.
Custody
PenaDeLa next argues that his statements were given involuntarily because he
was in custody at the time he gave the statements. In determining whether an
individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding
the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest
or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tex.Crim.App.2010), cert. den’d, 2011 U.S. Lexis 441,
79 U.S.L.W. 3399 (U.S. January 10, 2011); Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254
(Tex.Crim.App.1996). An officer's views concerning the nature of an interrogation, or
beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned, may be
one among many factors that bear upon the assessment whether that individual was in
custody, but only if the officer's views or beliefs were somehow manifested to the
individual under interrogation and would have affected how a reasonable person in
that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. Estrada, 313 S.W.3d at 294.
PenaDeLa was questioned in the warden’s office complex inside of the prison
unit. Although there were guards in the office complex, the guard was not permitted to
restrain or detain PenaDeLa. Obviously, for security purposes the doors leaving the
prison are locked and a person must have employee identification to leave the premises
or other authorization.
Penadela v. State Page 5 Warden Johnson testified that PenaDeLa was free to leave at any time. Johnson
explained, “There’s no one there except the inmates in white that are not free to leave.”
If PenaDeLa would have indicated to Johnson that he did not wish to give a statement,
Johnson would have let him leave the premises at that time. During the course of the
investigation, PenaDeLa surrendered his employee identification, and therefore, would
have to be escorted out of the building. Johnson testified that if PenaDeLa would have
requested to leave, a uniformed shift supervisor or Johnson would have escorted him
from the building.
Investigator Dorman read PenaDeLa the Miranda warnings before taking a
statement informing PenaDeLa of his right to terminate the interview. PenaDeLa
signed the statement indicating that he was not in custody.
Although the security measures inside of the prison unit created a unique
situation for leaving the building, PenaDeLa was free to terminate the interview and
leave the premises at any time. We find that a reasonable person would not believe his
freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying PenaDeLa’s motion to suppress. We
overrule PenaDeLa’s sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and
Penadela v. State Page 6 Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 2, 2011 Do not publish [CR25]
Penadela v. State Page 7