Heredia, Ruben, PD-0355-15

Ruben Heredia was charged with possession of cocaine (more than 4g, less than 200g) and convicted by a Navarro County jury; he was sentenced to 60 years.
Heredia moved to suppress post-arrest statements; the trial court denied suppression and later made findings about voluntariness and waiver under Article 38.22.
The Tenth Court of Appeals abated the appeal for the trial court to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law about whether Heredia knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights; the appeal was then reinstated.
Heredia filed a Petition for Discretionary Review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals raising the denial of his suppression motion and the admission of various extraneous statements.
The disputed evidence includes custodial statements allegedly made after Heredia said “No” to waiving rights, and references admitted at trial to prior drug use, a warrant, drug prices/sales, and derogatory comments about police.

Issue	Heredia's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by admitting Heredia's custodial statements in violation of Art. 38.22 / Miranda	Heredia: the stop became custodial after discovery of a warrant; he declined to waive rights (“No”), so subsequent questioning/statements were inadmissible	State: the encounter/waiver were lawful and statements admissible (trial record supports admission)	Court of Appeals abated for findings; trial court made findings and appeal reinstated — merits not resolved by the excerpts provided
Whether extraneous statements (prior drug use, warrant, drug-sales talk, insults toward police) were improperly admitted under Rules 401/403/404(b)	Heredia: these statements were irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded under 401/403/404(b) and Montgomery gatekeeping requirements	State: such statements had probative value and were admissible for proper purposes (e.g., knowledge, context)	Trial court admitted evidence; appellate process required findings. No final merits disposition shown in provided record

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (determining when a person is "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defining "interrogation" for Miranda purposes)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (discussing custody and objective test for Miranda)
Douthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App.) (custody/consent analysis in Texas)
Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App.) (waiver analysis under Article 38.22; totality of circumstances)
Bishop v. State, 869 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. Crim. App.) (extraneous-act evidence analyzed under 404(b) and 403)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (gatekeeping requirements for admitting extraneous-offense evidence)