Paul Rodriguez v. State, 07-16-00124-CR

Shortly after midnight on Feb. 1, 2014, a lone suspect assaulted an employee with a baseball bat, then struck the manager and took money from a Dairy Queen safe in Lubbock; no immediate arrest followed.
Detectives developed leads identifying Paul Rodriguez as a suspect; police read Rodriguez his Miranda rights and recorded a custodial interview.
Rodriguez repeatedly denied involvement for about 42 minutes, made several equivocal statements about stopping the interview (one was unequivocal and honored), but repeatedly reinitiated conversation and ultimately confessed after officers suggested his pregnant girlfriend might be an accomplice.
At trial a redacted portion of the confession and two recorded jail phone calls between Rodriguez and his mother were admitted into evidence over defense objections.
Rodriguez was convicted on two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 50 years; he appealed arguing (1) ineffective assistance for failure to challenge the confession as taken after an invoked right to remain silent, and (2) Confrontation Clause violation from admission of the recorded jail calls.
The court affirmed, finding no unequivocal assertion of the right to remain silent (so counsel’s failure to object was not deficient or prejudicial) and that the jail-call recordings were non-testimonial (so their admission did not violate Crawford).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the custodial confession after Rodriguez invoked the right to remain silent	Rodriguez: he clearly invoked his right to stop the interview and officers should have ceased questioning; counsel’s failure to object was ineffective	State: Rodriguez did not unequivocally invoke the right; he repeatedly reinitiated the interview and voluntarily spoke after Miranda warnings	Court: No unequivocal invocation; confession admissible; counsel’s omission not ineffective under Strickland
Whether admission of recorded jail-phone calls violated Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights	Rodriguez: calls were recorded after police contact with his mother and could be used at trial, making them testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation	State: the calls were not testimonial; their primary purpose was not to create out-of-court testimony for prosecution	Court: Recordings were non-testimonial; admission did not violate Crawford; trial court did not abuse discretion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings; suspect may invoke right to remain silent)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (testimonial inquiry centers on primary purpose of statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (defining testimonial categories and Crawford framework)
De La Paz v. State, 273 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App.; discussion of Crawford and testimonial statements)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.; Strickland application)