Date: 12-20-2016

Case Style:

Case Number: 01-15-00967-CR

Judge: Harvey G. Brown

Court: In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

John J. Harrity III
Abdul Farukhi  
John F. Healey, Jr.

Defendant's Attorney:

Cary Faden

Description: The decedent, Marlon Alexander Palencia “Alex” Castaneda, sent messages
on Facebook to Araceli Romero, Huver’s wife. Huver asked Araceli to “defriend”
Alex on Facebook, which she did. Araceli and Alex had no communications for at
least a year before Alex’s death. Huver, however, believed that Araceli had
engaged in an affair with Alex and warned his wife that he would find Alex and
make him “pay for the fact that he got involved with” her.
On March 20, 2014, Huver went out drinking with a friend, Daniel
Castaneda-Gomez. Huver told Daniel that he was going to go to Sugar Land “to
kill [a] guy.” Daniel was also upset at Alex because the latter had been sending
Facebook messages to Daniel’s girlfriend. Daniel agreed to go to Sugar Land with
Huver. The following morning, Daniel used Facebook to locate Alex. Huver drove
his wife’s gold-colored Acura SUV to Alex’s workplace, accompanied by Daniel.
At approximately 9:00 a.m. on March 21, 2014, Huver and Daniel arrived at
Global Casework, where Alex worked. They walked into the work area, where
they encountered Luis Caballeros, a Global Casework employee, and asked for
Alex. Luis directed them to Alex’s work area.
Global Casework’s internal security video system recorded events from a
variety of angles. The videos show two men entering the business’s work area and
approaching Alex’s work station. One man, Huver, is seen wearing a dark shirt,


3
and the other man, whom Huver later identified as Daniel, is seen wearing an
orange shirt. The videos show the men fleeing the warehouse a moment later, as
well as Alex clutching his chest, stumbling, and falling to the floor. A surveillance
video from a business across the street shows the same two men running, then
driving away in a gold-colored SUV.
Obed Caballeros worked near Alex’s work station and was the closest
witness to the shooting. Obed testified that he saw two young men walk into the
work area and speak with Alex, then saw Alex try to move the men to the side. He
saw Alex attempt to turn away from the men, then saw one of the men pull out a
gun and shoot Alex as Alex was turning. He described the shooter as a man
wearing a blue shirt and an earring. After the shooting, he saw the men run away,
while Alex stumbled toward him.
Another witness and Global Casework employee, Israel Pena, testified that
he heard a popping sound, went to the factory floor, and found Alex lying on the
ground and bleeding. Pena attempted first aid, but Alex died in his arms within a
few minutes.
The morning of the shooting, Huver called his wife, Araceli, and told her
that he had shot someone. Araceli did not believe him, told him he was crazy, and
hung up the phone. Later in the day, however, she saw surveillance videos of the
shooting on television and recognized her husband. She called “Crime Stoppers”


4
and made an anonymous tip. She later spoke with police and gave them additional
information that facilitated Huver’s arrest. Huver was arrested in Denton County,
north of the Dallas–Fort Worth area. He had cut his hair, changed the SIM card in
his cell phone, and stayed with family in various locations outside of the Houston
area.
Police went to Huver’s home and seized the gold Acura SUV, as well as
shell casings and ammunition that matched the caliber of bullet used in the murder.
They also found an orange shirt apparently matching the shirt that Daniel wore on
the morning of the shooting.
Police interviewed Huver with the assistance of a detective who translated
the interview.1 Before doing so, they advised him of his rights under the United
States Constitution and Texas law, including those required by Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). Huver acknowledged each of his
rights and stated that he understood each of them through a series of questions and
answers. He and the detectives then had the following exchange:
Det. R. Garza: You can also waive your rights to remain silent and your right to request an—an attorney and you can proceed to answer any question or make any comment as you wish. If you decide to answer the
1 The interview, including the questions and answers regarding Huver’s rights, was conducted by Detective K. Gless and Detective R. Garza. Gless asked questions in English, and Garza translated Gless’s questions from English into Spanish and Huver’s answers from Spanish into English. Garza also asked additional questions in Spanish.


5
questions, you can stop whenever you want and claim your right to request—request an attorney, do you understand?
Huver: Yes.
Det. R. Garza: Uh, do you understand what I have said to you?
Huver: Yes.
Det. R. Garza: All of it? Okay. Knowing all these rights, do you want to talk to us about what happened here?
Huver: Is it necessary?
Det. R. Garza: Well, yes, yes. Well, we are—we are continuing an investigation and—and we want—He—he—he’s asking if it’s necessary for us to—to talk to him.
Det. K. Gless: For—well I—I need to talk to him and get his side of the story.
Det. R. Garza: He says—he says that we need to talk to you to get the side of your story.
Huver: Okay.
Det. R. Garza: Okay?
Huver: Yes.
Det. R. Garza: Yes. Okay. Yes, he said yeah.
Huver: But an attorney—I don’t have any money to pay for an attorney.
Det. R. Garza: Okay. Okay. But—but you understand that you can talk to us without any attorney, right? Do you understand that?
Huver: Yes.


6
Det. R. Garza: Okay. And—and if you ever—ever—you decide “I want”—do you want—what you said is that you do want to talk to us, right? Okay. And if you ever— He’s—he’s asked—he just—he said that, uh, he doesn’t—he can’t—he can’t pay for, uh, an attorney. Okay. So—so what’d ya want me to tell him?
Det. K. Gless: That—the question is does he want to talk to us or does he wanna. . . [elipsis original]
Det. R. Garza: He—he—okay. He says that the question is—is if you want to talk to us.
Huver: Yes.
Huver then confessed to the murder, explaining that he hadn’t killed Alex earlier
because he “hadn’t run into him.” When the detectives asked if he felt “bad for
killing this guy,” he answered, “Well, no.” Once in jail, Huver had multiple phone
conversations on the jail phone system with his wife, which were recorded and
introduced at trial. In those recordings, he stated that he “felt humiliated” by Alex
and told his wife not to “waste money” on an attorney, explaining, “I did what I
did.”
As trial approached, however, Huver apparently changed his mind about his
defense. He wrote to Araceli from jail, asking her to testify that she “had
something to do with” Alex, so that he could argue that the murder was “passional
[sic] death.” Araceli testified that she understood this to be a request that she lie
under oath.


7
At trial, the jury heard testimony from Global Casework employees Pena,
Luis, and Obed, who testified as to the events of the shooting. Obed identified
Huver as one of the men who came into Global Casework looking for Alex and
testified that he had previously identified Daniel in a photo line-up.
Araceli testified that Huver called her on the morning of the shooting and
“told [her] that he had killed someone.” She “told him [he was] crazy and . . . hung
up on him,” only to see him in a televised replay of Global Casework’s security
video later in the day. She called Crime Stoppers and later talked to the police. She
also testified that Huver was drunk the night before the shooting, returned to their
home with Daniel, and drove her car the morning of the shooting. She explained
her relationship with Alex, testifying that she met him by chance on a trip to a store
and agreed to be friends with him on Facebook, after which he would pay her
compliments when she posted photos on the site. She became “friends” with him
on Facebook about a year before his death and remained friends with him for two
or three months, then broke off the connection at Huver’s request. Huver, however,
threatened “whenever he drank . . . that he was going to find” Alex and that Alex
was “going to pay for the fact that he got involved with” Araceli.
The deputy medical examiner, Dr. H. Narula, testified that he conducted an
autopsy of Alex and determined that the cause of his death was a gunshot wound to
the chest. The wound was consistent with someone “turning away from a gunshot.”


8
Kris Mancha, an employee of the business across the street that recorded
footage of Huver and Daniel fleeing the scene, authenticated the video.
D. Mancilla, a contractor working with the Fort Bend County Jail, authenticated
the audio recordings of phone calls to Araceli by Huver from the jail and explained
the technology used to confirm an inmate’s identity when he uses the phone.
The State also presented testimony from a firearms examiner, who testified
that the bullet that killed Alex was a 9-millimeter Luger round, a caliber consistent
with ammunition that police recovered from Huver’s home. Sergeant G. O’Donnell
of the Sugar Land Police Department testified that he responded to the scene of the
crime and authenticated various pieces of evidence. M. Hunter, an investigator
with the Sugar Land Police Department, testified that he assisted with the
investigation of Huver’s apartment and located 9-millimeter ammunition there.
Huver moved to suppress his videotaped confession to police, and the trial
court held a hearing on that motion. During that hearing, Detective R. Garza of the
Sugar Land Police Department testified that he and Detective K. Gless took
custody of Huver in Denton County and drove him to Sugar Land, but they did not
interrogate him during that time. He further testified that, after they reached Sugar
Land, he read Huver his Miranda rights using a card containing the text in Spanish.
He also served as a translator during the interview, which he and Detective Gless
conducted together. A licensed court interpreter also testified during the hearing


9
regarding the translation and interpretation of Huver’s question, “Is it necessary?”,
and the detectives’ responses. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and
subsequently filed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision.
Detective Garza testified in the presence of the jury regarding the confession, and
the jury saw the video recording of the confession.
Huver testified in his own defense. He testified that he and Daniel “drank all
night long” the night before the shooting, then went to Sugar Land to “beat [Alex]
up.” He had a gun with him and took it into Global Casework’s facility, where he
asked someone where to find Alex. He testified that he pointed the gun at Alex in
an attempt to convince Alex to go outside, but did not intend to shoot Alex.
According to Huver, he pulled back on the hammer of the gun, but the hammer
slipped, causing the gun to fire, and he fled.
The jury convicted Huver of murder. Huver elected to be sentenced by the
trial court, which assessed punishment at 45 years’ confinement. Huver now
appeals.
Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first issue, Huver contends that legally insufficient evidence supports
his conviction. He argues that he presented evidence—namely, his own
testimony—that the shooting was an accident, and the jury therefore could not


10
rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the necessary
mental state for murder.
A. Standard of review
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard
announced in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–20, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788–89
(1979). See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 894–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Under the Jackson standard, evidence is insufficient to support a conviction if,
considering all the record evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, no
rational factfinder could have found that each essential element of the charged
offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 317–19, 99 S.
Ct. at 2788–89; Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
We consider both direct and circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences
that may be drawn from the evidence in making our determination. Id., Clayton v.
State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The Jackson standard defers to the factfinder “to resolve conflicts in the
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic
facts to ultimate facts.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Clayton, 235
S.W.3d at 778. We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicts in the
evidence in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution, provided that the
resolution is rational. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S. Ct. at 2793. The jury


11
may choose to believe or disbelieve any part of any witness’s testimony. See Davis
v. State, 177 S.W.3d 355, 358 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
Evidence is insufficient when (1) the record contains no evidence, or merely
a “modicum” of evidence, probative of an element of the offense, (2) the evidence
conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt, or (3) the acts that the State alleges, if
true, do not constitute the charged crime. Kiffe v. State, 361 S.W.3d 104, 107–08
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); see Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314–
19, 99 S. Ct. at 2786–89; Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). If an appellate court finds the evidence to be insufficient under this
standard, it must reverse the judgment and enter an order of acquittal. See Tibbs v.
Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 41, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2218 (1982).
B. Legally sufficient evidence supports the verdict
The jury saw video showing Huver and his accomplice, Daniel, at the Global
Casework facility just before Alex was shot, and additional video of the men
fleeing the scene after the shooting. It heard testimony that Huver was jealous of
Alex because Alex had contact with Araceli, Huver’s wife. It heard Araceli’s
testimony that Huver told her that he had killed someone and recordings of jail
phone calls in which Huver told Araceli, “I did what I did,” and expressed no
remorse. The jury also heard Huver’s own testimony that he pointed a gun at and
shot Alex, although Huver testified that the shooting was an accident. He also


12
testified that he had owned the gun for eight months and fired it on several
occasions, indicating some familiarity with its operation. He admitted that he
intended to make Alex think that he would be shot. “When a defendant uses a
weapon in such a manner that an intent to kill is exhibited, then an intent to kill can
be directly concluded.” Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App.
1988).
We review this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Laster, 275 S.W.3d at 517–18.
Applying the Jackson standard, we ask whether any rational factfinder could have
found Huver guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, deferring to the jury to
resolve all discrepancies in the facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19, 99 S. Ct. at
2789; Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. The jury could have believed that the above
evidence demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Huver intended to murder
and did murder Alex. It was free to disbelieve all or any part of Huver’s testimony
that the shooting was an accident. Davis, 177 S.W.3d at 358. Accordingly, we
overrule Huver’s first issue.2
2 Huver suggests in his briefing of his first issue that he was improperly denied an opportunity to obtain an instruction on the doctrine of sudden passion. He concedes, however, that he “failed to present any evidence of sudden passion.” He contends that he should have presented such evidence during the punishment phase of his trial but, because he requested punishment by the trial court instead of a jury, he was denied the opportunity to do so. Nothing in the record indicates either that Huver acted in sudden passion regarding information he had known for


13
Motion to Suppress
In his second issue, Huver contends that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to suppress his confession to police because he did not make his confession
freely and voluntarily and did not knowingly waive his rights. He contends that his
question to police—“Is it necessary?”—and the detectives’ affirmative answer
indicate that he did not understand his rights or voluntarily waive them, and
therefore the confession was coerced. He concludes that admission of his
confession at trial violated Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
the standard set out in Miranda, and constitutional due-process protections.
A. Standard of review
When a defendant challenges a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress a
statement, we conduct a bifurcated review, in which we review the trial court’s
factual findings for an abuse of discretion and its application of law to the facts de
novo. Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing
Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442, 447–48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). We grant
almost total deference to a trial court’s determinations of historical facts. Valtierra,
310 S.W.3d at 447. We use the same deferential standard for mixed questions of
law and fact that require evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Id. However, we
review de novo all other mixed questions of law and fact that do not fall within that
months or that the trial court, as opposed to Huver’s own trial strategy, prevented him from seeking an appropriate instruction on sudden passion.


14
category. Id. We imply all necessary findings of fact that are supported by the
record. Id. And, we must uphold the trial court’s ruling if it was within the zone of
reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991) (op. on reh’g).
Whether a defendant’s statement is voluntary presents a mixed question of
law and fact. Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see
Juarez v. State, 409 S.W.3d 156, 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet.
ref d). The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
a defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights. Joseph
v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20, 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A defendant need not
explicitly waive his rights, nor must he express his waiver in writing. Id. A
defendant’s actions and words may be sufficient to infer waiver. Id. When a
defendant alleges that he involuntarily waived his rights and made a statement, we
consider the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience,
background, and conduct. Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 352 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011); Joseph, 309 S.W.3d at 25; Juarez, 409 S.W.3d at 165. A statement is
involuntary if it was the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception. Joseph,
309 S.W.3d at 26; Juarez, 409 S.W.3d at 165.


15
B. Huver’s confession was properly admitted
Under Miranda, the State must advise a person of certain rights before
beginning a custodial interrogation. 384 U.S. at 444, 479, 86 S. Ct. at 1612, 1630.
Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists the warnings that must be
given in Texas, namely that
(1) [the person being interrogated] has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement he makes may be used against him at his trial;
(2) any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court;
(3) he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning;
(4) if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during any questioning; and
(5) he has the right to terminate the interview at any time[.]
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.22, § 2(a). Once a suspect has been informed of
these rights, his statement is admissible if he waives his rights by speaking “freely
and voluntarily without any compelling influences.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86
S. Ct. at 1630; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.22, §§ 2–3 (setting out
requirements for waiver and additional requirements for recording of statements).
After he was taken into custody, Huver received and acknowledged each of
the warnings required by Miranda and Article 38.22. He does not dispute that his


16
video-recorded interrogation shows him being given these warnings, one at a time,
and acknowledging that he understood each one.
After reading Huver his rights, the interrogating detectives asked, “Knowing
all these rights, do you want to talk to us about what happened here?” Huver
responded with a question: “Is it necessary?” The detectives said that they
“need[ed] to talk to him and get his side of the story,” to which Huver responded,
“But . . . I don’t have any money to pay for an attorney.” The detectives confirmed
that he understood that he could talk to them without an attorney, then asked again
whether Huver “want[ed] to talk to” them. He responded, “Yes,” then, without
mentioning an attorney again or asking to terminate the interview, spoke with the
detectives at length and confessed to intentionally shooting Alex.
We consider Huver’s question, “Is it necessary?”, in light of the totality of
the circumstances including the defendant’s experience, background, and conduct.
Leza, 351 S.W.3d at 352; Joseph, 309 S.W.3d at 25; Juarez, 409 S.W.3d at 165. In
light of that standard, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the
question did not mean that Huver had failed to understand his rights but, rather,
was consistent with Huver understanding and voluntarily waiving his rights. As the
trial court explained in its written findings of fact, the detectives’ response to
Huver’s question, informing him that they “need[ed] to get his side of the story,”


17
“was not a coercive or deceptive act that would overbear the defendant’s ability to
intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waive his rights.”
Moreover, one remark is not dispositive regarding whether a confession was
voluntary; it is merely one piece of evidence to be considered. Green v. State, 934
S.W.2d 92, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). “The focus is on whether the behavior of
the State’s law enforcement officials was such as to overbear the will of the
accused and bring about a confession not freely determined.” Id. at 99–100 (citing
Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S. Ct. 735, 741 (1961)). Applying
these standards, we cannot say that the trial court erred in determining that Huver
gave his confession freely and voluntarily. See Turrubiate, 399 S.W.3d at 150
(appellate court must defer to trial court on issues involving weighing of evidence,
credibility, and demeanor in context of motion to suppress).
Huver also argues that translation from Spanish to English during the
interview or a lack of mental capacity prevented him from understanding and
voluntarily waiving his rights. He does not identify any evidence that any
particular translation—whether from Spanish to English or from English to
Spanish—was incorrect or caused any failure of understanding, nor does he
identify any evidence demonstrating that he suffers from a lack of mental capacity
that impaired his ability to understand his rights. Our review of the record reveals
the contrary. He clearly and unequivocally stated that he understood each of his


18
rights, then proceeded to answer the detectives’ questions in a clear and coherent
manner. Nothing in the record indicates that he was unable to understand what was
being said to him regarding his rights or unable to make himself understood
regarding his decision to waive those rights.
Finally, Huver argues that the issue of voluntariness should have been
submitted to the jury. But the jury was instructed on the law applicable to
confessions made while in custody. It was also instructed that, if it had any
reasonable doubt regarding whether the detectives read Huver his rights or
regarding the voluntariness of Huver’s confession, it was not to consider the
confession for any purpose. Huver did not object to this portion of the jury charge
in the trial court, nor does he identify on appeal any error in the charge.
We hold that the trial court did not err in denying Huver’s motion to
suppress.3 Accordingly, we overrule Huver’s second issue.4

Outcome: