Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State

DecidedApril 29, 2014

Docket14-13-00168-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State (Pedro Ernesto Umana 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

Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Abatement Order filed April 29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-13-00168-CR ____________

PEDRO ERNESTO UMANA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 321010351

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s 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. Ann. art. 38.22 § 6 (Vernon 2005); Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d

1 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). See also Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“We hold that written findings are required in all cases concerning voluntariness.”) 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). Accordingly, 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 within thirty days of the date of this order. 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 parties may supplement their briefs within 30 days after the findings are filed in this court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison and McCally.

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

Abatement Order filed April 29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-13-00168-CR ____________

PEDRO ERNESTO UMANA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 321010351

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court failed to submit written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s 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. Ann. art. 38.22 § 6 (Vernon 2005); Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d

1 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). See also Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“We hold that written findings are required in all cases concerning voluntariness.”) 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). Accordingly, 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 within thirty days of the date of this order. 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 parties may supplement their briefs within 30 days after the findings are filed in this court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison and McCally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-ernesto-umana-v-state-texapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack