Alberto Washington Alcivar-Rosales v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-22-00288-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 29, 2023; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alberto Washington Alcivar-Rosales was convicted by a jury in the Fifth District Court of Texas for continuous sexual abuse of a child and indecency with a child by contact, receiving sentences of twenty-five years and two years imprisonment, respectively. He appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that his statements made during a custodial interrogation should not have been presented to the jury and that the judgment incorrectly reflected the penal code section for his indecency conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment with modifications.

The events leading to the conviction began with Alcivar-Rosales's arrest at approximately 4:30 a.m. on February 1, 2019. He was taken to the Children’s Advocacy Center, where Captain Chris Fontana conducted a recorded interview. During this interview, Alcivar-Rosales confessed to the offenses. Prior to the trial, he sought to suppress the confession and any related evidence. 

In a pretrial hearing, Captain Fontana testified that Alcivar-Rosales did not appear impaired and was informed of his Miranda rights, which he acknowledged understanding. Alcivar-Rosales voluntarily chose to speak with the officer. The recorded interview, lasting over an hour, was admitted into evidence without objection. Although Alcivar-Rosales disclosed a history of depression and suicidal thoughts during the interview, Captain Fontana maintained that he did not perceive Alcivar-Rosales as impaired or unable to understand his rights, stating that he had no concerns about the defendant's mental state at the time of the interrogation.

Mr. Alcivar-Rosales testified at a pretrial hearing about his major depressive disorder, diagnosed in 2013, which includes cognitive dysfunction and memory issues. He is not currently on medication and has previous suicide attempts, the latest in May 2019, resulting in a week-long hospitalization. During direct examination, he confirmed being depressed during an interview with Captain Fontana after his arrest but did not consider suicide at that moment, indicating a general sense of hopelessness. He expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of treatment for his suicidal tendencies while in jail. 

On cross-examination, Alcivar-Rosales acknowledged he was employed as an elementary school teacher and was able to comprehend and engage in a conversation with Captain Fontana during the interrogation, which lasted over an hour. The defense argued that his mental disorder affected the voluntariness of his confession during custodial interrogation, while the State contended that there was no indication he was unable to provide his statements freely. The trial court ruled the recorded interview admissible, and it was presented to the jury without objection. 

During closing arguments, defense counsel claimed the confession was involuntary due to Alcivar-Rosales's crisis state, urging the jury to follow the instruction that a statement not proven to be voluntary should not be considered. The analysis section outlines the standard of review for a motion to suppress, emphasizing deference to the trial court’s factual determinations while applying a de novo review for legal questions. It cites relevant Texas statutes about the admissibility of confessions, noting that a statement may be admitted only if made voluntarily, and highlights that potential scenarios for involuntariness are broader under Texas law than under federal standards.

A confession may be deemed involuntary if obtained under duress from factors such as hallucinations, illness, medications, or threats, as outlined in Texas Penal Code articles 38.21 and 38.22. The determination of voluntariness is based on the totality of circumstances, including the defendant’s background and mental state, as established in case law. When a defendant raises questions about the voluntariness of their confession, the prosecution must prove that the confession was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. In the case of Mr. Alcivar-Rosales, he argued that the trial court erred by admitting his recorded confession, claiming the State failed to demonstrate its voluntariness. The State contended that this issue was not preserved for appeal due to lack of objection at trial. The court assumed, for the sake of the opinion, that the issue was preserved and found no error, noting that the recorded confession showed Mr. Alcivar-Rosales appeared cognizant and oriented. Additionally, Mr. Alcivar-Rosales sought a modification of his conviction record to reflect a conviction under section 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code rather than section 21.11(d), a request with which the State concurred. The court modified the judgment accordingly and affirmed it as modified.