Rodriguez v. State

1

OSCAR DAVILA RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 13-19-00326-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

May 26, 2022

Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2 (b).

On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County Texas.

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DORI CONTRERAS, CHIEF JUSTICE

In 2008, a jury convicted appellant Oscar Davila Rodriguez of murder, a first-degree felony.^[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann § 19.02(b)(1). Free on bond pending the jury's verdict, appellant absconded during the guilt-innocence phase of trial. The jury convicted appellant in his absence and assessed punishment at forty years' confinement. See id. § 12.32. Appellant's sentence was eventually pronounced on November 26, 2018, following his apprehension in Mexico and return to Texas. See Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03(a) (noting that sentence must be pronounced in the defendant's presence). Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal, and we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Rodriguez v. State, 13-19-00105-CR, 2019 WL 1562006, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted. Ex parte Davila Rodriguez, WR-89, 943-01, 2019 WL 2439408, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 12, 2019) (not designated for publication); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. This appeal followed.

By six issues, appellant contends: (1-2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement of accused; (3) the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury under Articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; (4) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request Articles 38.22 and 38.23 instructions or object to their absence; (5) the trial court erred by admitting "extraneous-matter evidence in violation of Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 404(b)[, ] and 403"; and (6) the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial "based on newly discovered evidence." We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background & Procedural History

A. Nydia Maldonado is Found Deceased in Her Home

Nydia Maldonado lived at home with her mother, Nora Maldonado, and stepfather, Eliseo Ibarra. Ibarra testified at trial that as he returned home after work on the evening of October 31, 2005, at approximately 7:30 p.m., appellant arrived at the same time. Appellant, Nydia's ex-boyfriend, informed Ibarra that he was worried about Nydia, as she had not answered his telephone calls to her that day. Observing Nydia's car at the house, Ibarra stated that Nydia must be inside. The two attempted to enter the home, but the front door was latched from the inside. Because he did not have a key to the back door, Ibarra grabbed a pair of pliers and wrested open the front door. Ibarra headed straight to Nydia's room, where he found her purple, swollen, and with two puncture wounds in her neck.^[2] Ibarra testified that he left the room, instructed appellant to call 911, and called his wife to inform her of his discovery.

Appellant dialed 911 and, per the 911 transcript, stated that his "cousin just committed suicide" and had been dead for "a couple hours." Appellant later clarified that the deceased was his ex-girlfriend and implored the operator to have an officer sent to the home. Moments later, at approximately 7:49 p.m., Officer Omar Caballero of the McAllen Police Department (MPD) arrived to secure the scene.

Lead MPD investigator in this case, Clemente Blanco, was called to the scene. Blanco testified that he briefly questioned appellant at the Maldonados' home and that appellant was cooperative. Blanco noted that appellant informed him that appellant went to Nydia's house that day to check on her because she was not answering his phone calls. Appellant told Blanco that he was Nydia's ex-boyfriend. Appellant also informed Blanco that Nydia and a male friend of hers, whom he knew as Clone, ^[3] were at Nydia's house late in the previous evening or earlier that morning, and that appellant knew where Clone lived. Given that information, Blanco thought it prudent to ascertain Clone's whereabouts.

Blanco testified that appellant agreed to accompany him to the police station to continue answering questions and to show him where Clone lived on the way. Because appellant's truck was contained within the secured crime scene, Blanco drove appellant past Clone's house and then to the police station. Blanco testified that appellant rode in the front passenger seat of his police vehicle and that, at that point, appellant was not a suspect.

B. Investigator Blanco Interviews Appellant

At about 10:00 p.m., Blanco and appellant entered the police station. Blanco led appellant into his office to begin the interview. Blanco again testified that appellant was not a suspect, detained, or under arrest at that time, and was free to leave if he chose to do so.

Blanco initially interviewed appellant for "several hours," beginning with questions about appellant's background. Appellant stated that Nydia had recently ended her relationship with him, that Nydia was somewhat depressed, that she and appellant remained friends, that she would occasionally request money from appellant, and that appellant would give her money. Appellant informed Blanco that he had gone to Nydia's house on October 30, the day before the murder, on four occasions to give her money, but he did not find her there. Appellant told Blanco that he also went to Nydia's house at approximately 2:30 a.m. on October 31; at that time, Nydia answered the door, they argued over Clone, whom appellant believed to be dating Nydia, and Nydia asked him to leave.

Having previously been informed of aspects of appellant's 911 call, Blanco followed up on why appellant believed that Nydia had committed suicide and was dead for a couple of hours by the time he and Ibarra found her body. Appellant told Blanco that he watched the Discovery Channel and that he had seen "shows [involving] the dead people." Blanco testified that he left his office a few times during his interview with appellant to "exchange notes" with and discuss the findings of the other investigators on the case who were then interviewing other relevant individuals.

Blanco stated that between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., now November 1, he became suspicious of appellant, believing appellant "was not being truthful," and the interview turned "accusatory." Blanco read appellant the Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and moved appellant into an interrogation room.^[4] Blanco testified that even when he changed his interview approach, appellant was not under arrest. Blanco attested that appellant consistently denied wrongdoing. Appellant told Blanco that while, at times, he had thoughts of wanting to harm Nydia, he would never do so because he loved her. Blanco stated that appellant consented to being fingerprinted and photographed, and that the interrogation lasted until approximately 12:00 p.m. At that time, appellant was transferred to a holding cell.

C. Investigator Phillip Kucia's Investigation & Appellant's Confession

MPD investigator Phillip Kucia testified that at approximately 7:00 a.m. on November 1, he was instructed by his lieutenant to find appellant's house and to collect appellant's clothing from the day prior, which he did. Kucia arrived at appellant's house and was greeted by appellant's father. Kucia asked for consent to enter the home to collect the clothing, which appellant's father granted. Crime scene investigators arrived to collect the clothing and then Kucia returned to the police station at approximately 11:00 a.m. Upon his return, Kucia met with Blanco and other investigators to exchange information relative to the murder investigation. Blanco informed Kucia that he believed appellant was being untruthful, and Kucia requested the opportunity to speak with appellant.

At approximately 1:00 p.m., appellant was brought from his holding cell into an interview room, and Kucia began questioning him. Kucia "explained [his] reason for being there," and asked appellant if he was willing to talk. According to Kucia, appellant agreed to talk. Kucia testified that he reread appellant the Miranda warnings and began his questioning. Kucia first asked appellant if he was upset with Nydia. Appellant stated that he was upset with Nydia because he believed that Nydia and Clone were dating. Kucia then told appellant that he was at appellant's parents' house earlier in the day to collect his clothing. Kucia testified that at that moment, appellant "started crying."

Kucia "emphasized with [appellant] that [the investigators] wanted to know the truth. [The investigators] wanted to know what happened last night." Kucia stated that appellant then "bent down" and said "well, I may have killed her." Kucia asked appellant "what he meant by that." Appellant stated that he "went over to [Nydia's] house around 5:00" p.m., and "didn't mean to hurt [Nydia]." Kucia asked appellant if he was willing to give a written statement, and appellant answered in the affirmative. Kucia read appellant his Miranda rights, and began taking appellant's statement. According to Kucia's testimony: Kucia informed appellant that he was entitled to an attorney, but appellant did not request one; appellant was told that he could terminate the interview at any time but proceeded to give a full statement; and appellant was not threatened or promised anything in return for his statement.

Kucia testified that he read appellant's...