SAUL CONTRERAS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF CASE 08-06-00205-CR OF THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS, EL PASO COUNTY

I join the judgment of the Court and its opinion except as to “Invocation of Right to Counsel”- subpart 5 of part B (“Analysis”) of Part I (“ARTICLE 38.23 INSTRUCTION”).   As the opinion says (ante, at 21), the court's charge under Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure included an instruction on the law applicable to waiver of right to counsel.   Whether the charge under Article 38.23 also should have included an instruction on the same law seems to be moot.   I see no need to discuss the question of the constitutional nature of the Miranda rule which so fractured the Supreme Court in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion.