Daniel v. State

ROSE, Chief Justice,

specially concurring.

Although I agree with the majority that appellant’s conviction and sentence must be affirmed, I do so for completely different reasons than those expressed in the majority opinion. First, my review of the record convinces me that the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements made by appellant which were, according to my view, obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.1 Even so, and for reasons that I will later explain, I cannot conclude that the admission of those statements prejudiced him. With respect to the inordinately severe sentence…