Pena, Manuel, PD-1004-15

Manuel Peña was arrested on April 20, 2009 on an arrest warrant for the alleged capital murder of Ramon Pinon; police read Miranda warnings shortly after arrest.
Peña appeared before a magistrate on April 21, 2009 and requested court‑appointed counsel; the State conceded the first post‑arrest statement (April 22) was inadmissible and the trial court suppressed it.
On April 30, 2009 Peña sent a handwritten, witnessed note to police saying he wanted to speak with them "without my attorney present," then executed a written waiver and gave a second statement.
Peña moved to suppress the April 30 statement, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel (and related Fifth Amendment protections). The trial court denied suppression; Peña was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole.
On appeal Peña argued the April 30 waiver was invalid because his Sixth Amendment right had attached and he had counsel when he reinitiated contact; the court of appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the April 30 statement must be suppressed as a violation of the right to counsel	Peña: Sixth Amendment right had attached after he requested counsel; any subsequent statement (including one following a note) was invalid because he waived without counsel present	State: Peña himself reinitiated communication by sending the handwritten note and then knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights in writing; Edwards protection ended when he initiated contact	Court: Held State; Edwards protections were terminated because Peña initiated contact and knowingly waived his rights, so suppression denial affirmed

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (prophylactic rule barring interrogation after a suspect requests counsel unless suspect initiates further communication)
Cross v. State, 144 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining Edwards two‑step test and that defendant must initiate contact and validly waive counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings and a knowing, voluntary waiver)
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (discussing initiation of further communication after assertion of right to counsel)
Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) (reinforcing protection against police‑initiated interrogation after request for counsel)