James Joseph Luckenbach v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00368-CR James Joseph Luckenbach, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 52770, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING OPINION James Joseph Luckenbach pleaded guilty to the capital murder of multiple persons. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(7). The State initially sought the death penalty but agreed to waive it after the plea agreement, and the district court assessed punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See id. § 12.31(a). On appeal, Luckenbach challenges the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress his incriminating statements to police. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02. He contends that he made those statements only after he was in custody, received Miranda warnings, invoked his right to counsel, and was told by police that a statement could “better [his] situation.” See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966). He also contends that the district court erred by declining to strike the venire panel that received an erroneous summons instructing prospective jurors to report for jury service on a date in 2022, instead of 2023. We will reverse the district court’s judgment of conviction and remand this cause to the district court. BACKGROUND The suppression hearing began with evidence about the events leading to Luckenbach’s arrest. The Burnet County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) responded to a report of two deceased individuals at a residence off Highway 71. Three days later, shortly after midnight, BCSO Deputy Brian Knowles was leaving the sheriff’s office in his patrol car when a dispatcher flagged him down and told him that someone, later identified as Luckenbach, was in the lobby of the sheriff’s office to turn himself in for the double homicide. Deputy Knowles drove to the front of the sheriff’s office where he saw a truck in visitor parking and a person on the other side of it, who identified himself as Jeff Mallett. The bodycam recording of Deputy Knowles’s parking-lot conversation with Mallett was admitted into evidence at the hearing. Mallett told Deputy Knowles that his friend, James Luckenbach, “who works for the company” was there to turn himself in for “the double homicide they had in Horseshoe Bay.” Mallett said that he had spent four hours talking Luckenbach out of killing himself, and that Luckenbach’s pistol along with Mallett’s pistol were in Mallett’s truck. Mallett told Deputy Knowles, “James has got representation.” He added that although Luckenbach had confessed to him all day, Mallett was “going to have to talk to the investigators and let ‘em know what’s going on” because Luckenbach was “not going to say anything.” Deputy Knowles asked, “Ok, he said he’s not?” Mallett confirmed, “No, he’s not.” Deputy Knowles went inside the sheriff’s office to speak with Luckenbach, who was later questioned by Texas Rangers. 2  The parties dispute, among other things, whether Luckenbach invoked his right to counsel while in custody. During the suppression hearing, the district court admitted into evidence video recordings of four separate interactions between law-enforcement officers and Luckenbach, depicting the events between his early-morning arrival at the sheriff’s office and his transport to jail hours later. Texas Ranger Cody Mitchell and BCSO deputies Knowles and John Michael Talamantez testified at the hearing. In his interactions with law enforcement, Luckenbach said that he had an attorney, that they would go through what they had when he arrived, that he promised to wait for the attorney and take guidance from him, and that he would like to wait for his attorney. Ranger Mitchell confirmed to Luckenbach that the person named “Jeff” who brought Luckenbach to the sheriff’s office had called an attorney, who was “en route.” Luckenbach was unaware that Mallett told Ranger Mitchell beforehand that he lied to Luckenbach to get him to the sheriff’s office and further that another officer—Ranger Nick Hill—learned about this “ruse” from Mallett. Deputy Knowles’s interaction with Luckenbach When Deputy Knowles went into the sheriff’s office lobby after speaking with Mallett, he introduced himself to Luckenbach and said that he understood Luckenbach was there to turn himself in. Luckenbach replied, “For questioning, yes sir.” Deputy Knowles asked to pat down Luckenbach and for him to turn around. Luckenbach complied and said that he had “never been arrested.” Less than a minut