Richard Lee Longoria v. State
13-15-00173-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 23, 2015Background
- Defendant Richard Longoria was tried for murder (fatal shooting of Alex Longoria on Aug. 18, 2013) and for being a felon in possession of a firearm (based on an earlier Nueces County robbery conviction).
- Witnesses placed Appellant at Nopal Park, said he arrived with a .22 rifle, fired twice (one shot struck the victim), and then discarded the rifle while fleeing in a vehicle.
- State admitted a videotaped custodial interview of Appellant (State’s Ex. 34), a Nueces County jail/booking record containing fingerprints (State’s Ex. 28/37), a judgment from the prior robbery case (State’s Ex. 27), and booking/fingerprint cards (State’s Ex. 26, 28).
- Defense objections: (1) custodial statement was admitted without a valid Miranda/Article 38.22 waiver and no written waiver; (2) court failed to make and file mandatory findings/conclusions about voluntariness; (3) testimony that Appellant was “maxed out on drugs” was inadmissible extraneous-bad-act evidence; (4) the jail booking record was not properly authenticated/self‑certified under Rule 902 and was thus inadmissible; (5) the trial court improperly commented on the weight/authenticity of the booking record in front of the jury; (6) proof of the prior conviction/link to Appellant was legally insufficient; (7) the same booking document was improperly readmitted at punishment.
- Procedural posture: jury convicted on both counts (life on murder; 20 years on felon-in-possession); Appellant filed a timely appeal and motion for new trial contesting the evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of proof of the prior conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State/Trial Court's Position | Held (trial-court ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of videotaped custodial statement (State’s Ex. 34) — waiver | Appellant orally limited willingness to speak and did not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waive Miranda/Art. 38.22; no written waiver; admission violated Fifth Amendment and Art. 38.22 | State argued Appellant’s continued answers implied waiver; trial court admitted the tape | Trial court overruled objection and admitted the videotape |
| Court’s duty to file findings on voluntariness (Art. 38.22 §6) | Court failed to make and file the mandatory findings/conclusions about voluntariness; appellate abatement required if not done | State did not dispute duty; court made no findings on record | No written findings filed (defense preserved abatement argument) |
| Extraneous-bad-act testimony — “maxed out on drugs” | Testimony that Appellant was "maxed out on drugs" was inadmissible character evidence under Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) and not same‑transaction/contextual; highly prejudicial | Prosecution treated it as background/state-of-mind/context; court overruled objection | Trial court overruled objection and admitted the testimony |
| Authentication/admissibility of Nueces County jail/booking record (State’s Ex. 28/37) | Booking record lacked proper certification/attestation under Tex. R. Evid. 902(4); not self‑authenticating; admission improperly used to prove prior conviction/link | State treated document as self-authenticating public record and offered witness testimony to identify it; court admitted it | Trial court admitted the booking record over defense objection |
| Trial judge commenting on weight/authenticity of booking record | Judge’s on-the-record statements that the exhibit bore an original signature/seal and noted dates constituted improper comment on weight and functional judicial testimony (Tex. R. Evid. 605) | Court said remarks were factual/record clarification and used “purported” language | Trial court made the remarks on the record; defense objected to commenting |
| Sufficiency of proof of prior conviction and identity-link | No fingerprints on the judgment; booking record was from a probation revocation context and not the original judgment; State failed to fit the “jigsaw” pieces to prove the conviction and link beyond a reasonable doubt | State relied on the judgment, booking cards, fingerprint comparison and witness testimony to link Appellant to the prior conviction | Jury found prior conviction proved (Count Two conviction sustained at trial); defense challenges legal sufficiency on appeal |
| Admission of the same booking document at punishment | The document was not properly admissible at punishment either; admission prejudiced jury to impose max sentence | State re-offered the booking/booking‑info at punishment; court admitted it | Trial court admitted the impeachment/prior‑record evidence at punishment over objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver standard)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1979) (waiver may be inferred from words and actions)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (totality of circumstances standard for Miranda waiver)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (government burden to show waiver by preponderance)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1979) (consider defendant’s experience/background in waiver analysis)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (proof standard for prior conviction and identity-link)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal‑sufficiency review; consider evidence in light most favorable to verdict)