Marcos Daniel Jimenez v. State, 01-15-00506-CR

Appellant Marcos Jimenez was convicted by jury of aggravated robbery (two consolidated causes) and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment; notices of appeal filed April 30, 2015.
The only direct identification evidence at trial was a vague description ("Hispanic," approximate age/size, teardrop tattoo); photo arrays produced no identification of Jimenez by victims.
Police located Jimenez in the general vicinity by hotel records and a hotel surveillance video (not the robbery scene). A detective invited Jimenez to an interview under a pretext; Miranda warnings were given.
Jimenez had recent treatment for a drug overdose and later was shown to be on bipolar medication; at the suppression (Jackson v. Denno) hearing the arresting officer’s recollection was equivocal on whether Jimenez initially tried to leave and whether any coercive statements were made.
The trial court "denied" the Jackson v. Denno motions but made no written or on-the-record specific factual findings required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22; the taped statement (Exh. 1A) was later admitted over renewed objection and played to the jury.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held (trial court)
Whether the trial court complied with Jackson v. Denno / Art. 38.22 by making independent voluntariness findings	Jimenez: court was required to make independent, specific factual findings (manifest on the record) that the statement was voluntary; failure to do so violated Due Process and art. 38.22	State: treated the hearing as a suppression/Miranda inquiry and overruled objections; no need for additional written findings beyond ruling	Trial court denied the Jackson v. Denno motions but made no specific findings of voluntariness on the record
Whether the taped statement was admissible before the jury given the alleged lack of proper voluntariness findings	Jimenez: admission without required art. 38.22 findings contaminated the jury and repeated the condemned "New York" procedure from Jackson v. Denno	State: renewed objection overruled; jury instructed on voluntariness	Trial court admitted the videotaped statement into evidence and allowed the jury to hear it

Jackson v. Denno, 373 U.S. 368 (1963) (trial court must determine voluntariness of confession in absence of jury)
Bonham v. State, 644 S.W.2d 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (art. 38.22 requires manifest, on-the-record findings of voluntariness)
Boles v. Stevenson, 379 U.S. 43 (1964) (need for reliable initial determination of voluntariness)
Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 (1967) (limitations on leaving voluntariness issues to jury)
McKittrick v. State, 535 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (Jackson v. Denno principles in Texas practice)
Davis v. State, 499 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (voluntariness findings and record requirements)
Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (criticizing belated cold-record fact-finding)
Manzi v. State, 88 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussion of de novo versus deferential review)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (context on sufficiency review and appellate remedies)