Pedro Ernesto Umana v. State
447 S.W.3d 346
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Umana was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sentenced to 50 years in prison and fined $10,000.
- Three intruders, including Umana, forced entry at the complainant’s apartment at gunpoint and ransacked the unit.
- Approximately 16 hours after the offense, Umana waived rights and gave a recorded custodial statement.
- Umana later was found incompetent to stand trial, then restored to competency after psychiatric treatment.
- A trial-level motion to suppress the video statement was denied; the statement was admitted at trial.
- During punishment, the State introduced details of an extraneous offense (deadly conduct), which the defense challenged, and the court admitted the evidence; the court costs of $639 were assessed against Umana.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the custodial statement voluntary under article 38.22 and Miranda? | Umana contends the statement was involuntary due to mental illness. | State argues voluntariness under totality of circumstances; no police overreach. | Waiver was voluntary; motion to suppress denied. |
| Was evidence of the extraneous deadly-conduct offense admissible in punishment? | Defense argues improper notice and collateral estoppel. | State contends details aid sentencing under article 37.07. | Admissible; no abuse of discretion. |
| Is there insufficient evidence to support the assessed court costs? | Challenge to the basis of costs. | JIMS cost bill properly itemized, certified, signed. | Costs supported by the bill of costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (involuntariness and standards for confession claims)
- Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (implied waiver of rights permissible under totality of circumstances)
- Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (implied waivers and voluntariness standard)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (explicit waiver not required; silence alone insufficient to negate waiver)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court on suppression determinations)
- Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (relevance of evidence during punishment; deter-mining admissibility of prior offenses)