Robert Kenneth Peters v. State
10-15-00151-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Peters was convicted of intoxication manslaughter after a single-vehicle crash that killed the passenger, Eddins; the indictment included a deadly-weapon allegation (the truck).
- Peters challenged ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to or suppressing statements, blood-alcohol results, and medical-record admissions.
- Trial court sentenced Peters to 20 years in the Institutional Division and Peters was given appellate rights.
- The trial record includes Peters’s hospital interview with Trooper Cashion, blood test results showing 0.2% BAC, and medical records containing his self-reports of drinking.
- The court applied Strickland v. Washington standards, requiring a deficient performance and prejudice, and concluded trial counsel’s actions likely would not have succeeded on appeal.
- The court affirmed the conviction, concluding no prong of Strickland was satisfied based on the presented record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody determinations for custodial interrogation | Peters was in custody during hospital interview | No custodial interrogation; not under arrest | Not custody; admissible without 38.22 protections |
| Voluntariness of blood-alcohol consent | Consent coerced by warnings and implied arrest | Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances | Consent voluntary; suppression unlikely |
| Admissibility of medical-record statements | Statements hearsay under Rule 803(4) | Statements cumulative of Trooper Cashion testimony | Admissible; harmless error because same facts admitted elsewhere |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (custody analysis; four Gardner factors)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (objective custody determination; ad hoc analysis)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Strickland standard and heavy deference on direct appeal)
- Fienen v. State, 390 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (consent to search; totality of circumstances; not inherently coercive)
- Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (consent to search not involuntary due to warrant-threat element)
- Beaupre v. State, 526 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (warnings that a warrant may be sought do not render consent involuntary)