Matthew Lee Barnett v. State

*252LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, JUSTICE,

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the conscientious majority for more than one reason.

The majority, relying on Swain v. State,1 holds that Barnett did not preserve his suppression issue for appellate review. The Swain court stated,

In his written “Motion to Suppress Evidence,” appellant generally argued “[t]hat any statements made by Defendant were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and his right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by U.S. Const, amends. V, VI, and XIV, and Tex. Const, art. I, §§ 10 and 19.” He also generally…