Edward Caballero v. State, 12-16-00191-CR

Edward Caballero was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and appealed raising four issues.
State’s Exhibit 13: a telephone recording between Christian Clements and Appellant’s wife in which Appellant is audible in the background; objections based on hearsay, Rule 803(8) and foundation/authenticity; trial court overruled objections.
State’s Exhibit 14: a custodial recording of an interview of Caballero by investigator Ryan Toliver; Caballero filed a pretrial motion to suppress claiming statements were involuntary, but no hearing or ruling appears in the record.
At trial Appellant objected to Exhibit 14 for lack of an on-record Miranda waiver; Toliver testified Caballero acknowledged understanding his rights and did not request counsel or refuse to speak.
Appellant did not expressly challenge the voluntariness of statements in Exhibit 13 at trial, but did challenge voluntariness (via suppression motion and Miranda waiver contention) as to Exhibit 14.
The Court of Appeals found issue three (voluntariness re: Exhibit 14) preserved and required the trial court to file written findings under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22, §6; issue two (Exhibit 13) was not preserved for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. (unspecified)	Appellant raised four issues on appeal (not detailed here)	State answered generally	Court did not resolve here (order focuses on issues 2–3)
2. Admissibility of Exhibit 13 (telephone recording)	Caballero: recording is hearsay, violates Confrontation Clause, and foundation/authenticity lacking	State: objections insufficient to raise voluntariness; recording admissible	Overruled objections; court concluded voluntariness was not raised so no §6 findings required; issue not preserved for appeal
3. Voluntariness / admissibility of Exhibit 14 (custodial recording)	Caballero: statements involuntary; no on-record knowing, intelligent, voluntary Miranda waiver	State: investigator testified Caballero understood rights, did not request counsel; State argued appellant did not preserve some claims	Court held voluntariness was challenged and preserved; no written §6 findings present, so case must be abated for the trial court to hold any necessary hearing and file written findings and conclusions under art. 38.22, §6
4. (unspecified)	Appellant raised additional issue(s) on appeal (not litigated in opinion)	State responded generally	Not decided here; submission postponed pending §6 findings

Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial court must make written findings and conclusions when voluntariness of a statement is challenged)
Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State bears burden to prove voluntariness of a Miranda waiver)
Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statute requires written findings in all voluntariness cases; no exceptions)