Frank has an archive named data-1-4.tar and he needs to examine the content of the archive. Which command will display the contents of the archive for Frank?
tar xvf data-1-4.tar
tar uvf data-1-4.tar
tar cvf data-1-4.tar
tar rvf data-1-4.ta
tar tvf data-1-4.tar
Jane has stored files in a compressed tar archive. She extracts the data with the following command:
$ zcat keyfiles.tar.Z | tar tvf -
Examine the command line, what is the function of the zcat command?
The zcat command uncompresses the file and directs the output to the pipe.
The zcat command uncompresses the file and outputs to a file called -
The zcat command uncompresses the file and write the output to disk.
The zcat command uncompresses the data from the tar commands output.
Which command is used at the beginning of each terminal session to identify oneself to the system? This command is invoked by the system when a connection is first established, after the previous user has terminated the login shell by issuing the exit command.
While working in his home directory Jim lists the directory contents with the following result:
$ ls -F
affiliates* daily-report* fixes today appointment expenses/ phone-list@ windfil> year- report| From this list of files, which file is executable?
Click the Exhibit button. A user named Val wants to configure the man command so that she is able to use the man -k option. Note that the -k option uses the windex database. Which command will configure the windex database for man pages?
man -f windex
make -m man
Click the Exhibit button. The user named Val issued a sequence of commands, as shown
in the exhibit. Which of the following choices describes the results of the last command executed by Val?
Changes directory to Val's home directory.
does not exist is displayed.
No such file or directory is displayed.
Changes directory to the previous directory.
Changes to the first directory listed in the current directory.
Click the Exhibit button. Jane lists the content of her home directory. The output of this listing is shown in the exhibit. Choose the answer that best describes the first line of the command's output.
The amount of data in this directory in megabytes.
The number of inodes used in this directory.
The amount of data used in kilobytes in this directory.
The number of blocks used in this directory.
This comprehensive two-day course aims to equip the novice SolarisUNIX user with all the skills necessary to navigate the system and make productive use of the tools available, including the Windows system, the vi editor and essential SolarisUNIX commands. It also forms the necessary foundation for subsequent courses. This course, combined with the Solaris Utilities and Shell Programming , provides preparation for the new Sun Certified Solaris Associate (SCSAS) CX-">310-105 exam.
Article by ArticleForge
College football‚Äôs Christmas morning is upon you. You¬†bound¬†down the stairs in your footy pajamas ‚ÄĒ you in red, your little brother in green and your sister in pink ‚ÄĒ turn the corner and set your gaze upon the tree. Except in this version of Christmas, your presents are already open. They are Clemson, wrapped in orange and a warm smile, and Alabama, packaged in crimson and a cold scowl. They are Oklahoma, plopped on the coffee table for a solid week now, and Michigan State, freshly packaged in a shiny, metallic green.
You know your presents ahead of time, but the lack of suspense, that paper-ripping drama you live for every year, doesn‚Äôt disappoint you, because you know how they arrived in front of you on this day, and that is what matters.
1. The drive. Trailing 13-9, Michigan State accepted the ball at its own 18-yard line with nine and a half minutes to play. They¬†would consume all but 27 of the remaining 571 seconds.
Needing a touchdown to win the game, Mark Dantonio‚Äôs Spartans moved 82 yards in 22 gut-checking plays. No play traveled longer than 16 yards. They would survive two penalties, convert five of six third down tries¬†and one fourth down try. The Spartans sucked away all three Iowa timeouts by running 17 times, including the final 12 plays covering the last 34 yards.
True freshman L.J. Scott rushed 13 times for 37 yards on the drive, including a final rush that was practically three carries on its own, a second-effort snapshot in history in which he denied the four Hawkeyes who tried to tackle him, extending his right hand straight to Dallas or Miami.
1a. For every time you forget Mark Dantonio is one of the elite coaches in this sport, remember this:
Coaches he‚Äôs beaten over these last three seasons: Mark Helfrich, James Franklin, David Shaw, Art Briles, Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer ‚ÄĒ twice.
2. Oklahoma is in. But you knew that already.¬†FootballScoop secured exclusive footage of the Stoops household on Saturday evening.
3. Clemson can do it all. Don‚Äôt let the 45-37¬†final margin deceive you: Clemson manhandled North Carolina on Saturday night. The Tigers out-rushed North Carolina 319-142, held the ball for nearly 39 minutes, achieved 33 first downs, notched drives of 96 and 97 yards, and harassed Marquise Williams into throwing incomplete on 22 of his 33 passes.
Dabo Swinney‚Äôs team has been on the No. 1 line every week of the season to date, and they‚Äôll be so again Sunday morning.
4. Alabama can‚Äôt do it all, but it‚Äôs really, really good at what it does do. Jake Coker is not A.J. McCarron, Greg McElroy, John Parker Wilson or even Blake Sims. That‚Äôs partly because he doesn‚Äôt have a Julio Jones or Amari Cooper to catch his passes.
But forget about what the Tide doesn‚Äôt have, because here‚Äôs what it does have: the best front seven and best running back in college football.
Alabama enters the Playoff as the best run defense on both a per game (74 yards) and per carry (2.38) basis. Kirby Smart‚Äôs defense has recorded 46 sacks, most in college football and third-most on a per game basis (3.54), and its 8.69 plays of 10-plus yards allowed per game are the fewest in college football. Alabama also sits in the top 10 in tackles for loss and third down defense.
On the other side of the ball, Derrick Henry‚Äôs 1,986 rushing yards and 23 touchdowns are more than any other player in the game. And there‚Äôs a strong chance he‚Äôll enter the Playoff with something else no one else has: the Heisman Trophy.
So, yes, Oklahoma can throw the ball better. Clemson is more well-rounded. Michigan State has more late game mettle. But none of those advantages will matter if they don‚Äôt first rectify themselves with Henry and Alabama‚Äôs front seven.
5. About that Heisman Trophy. The official mission of the Heisman Trophy reads, ‚ÄúThe Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.‚ÄĚ
What that in mind, consider Christian McCaffrey‚Äôs statistics in Stanford‚Äôs 41-22 victory over USC on Saturday night: 32 carries for 207 yards and one touchdown, four receptions for 105 yards and one touchdown, 120 kickoff return yards, 29 punt return yards and an 11-yard touchdown pass to boot. His 461 all-purpose yards on the night and 3,496 this season were enough to break Barry Sanders‚Äô 27-year-old FBS single-season all-purpose yardage record.
There are better running backs in college football. Better receivers, punt returners and kick returners, too. But how can one argue there‚Äôs a better¬†college football player¬†than Christian McCaffrey?
5a. The frustration of watching McCaffrey run wild created an awkward situation in the Levi‚Äôs Stadium press box.
6. The powers that be must spend their off-season improving college football‚Äôs officiating. With 1:13 remaining and all three timeouts in its back pocket, North Carolina recovered an onside kick that would have given the Heels the ball at midfield needing only a touchdown and a two-point conversion to force Clemson into overtime.
But North Carolina was called offsides on a play where, clearly, no one was offsides.
But it didn‚Äôt stop there. Actually, it didn‚Äôt start there.
After all that, only Texas defensive back Kevin Vaccaro was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct when, in reality, the only sin he committed was being pushed by a teammate as he attempted to step over Baylor quarterback Lynx Hawthorne.
Hawthorne should‚Äôve been flagged for a late hit, as should the Texas player (not Vaccaro) who shoved Hawthorne after the tackle. And both teams deserved flags for unsportsmanlike conduct.
But, hey, at least the Big 12 and ACC don‚Äôt already have officiating gaffes on their ledgers this season.
7. There wasn‚Äôt a Playoff spot on the line, but don‚Äôt think Temple and Houston didn‚Äôt have a lot to play for in the American championship. According to bowl guru Stewart Mandel‚Äôs latest projections, the winner of the AAC title game would play in the Peach Bowl opposite Florida State on New Year‚Äôs Eve.
The loser? They‚Äôre playing in dilapidated Tropicana Field at 11 a.m. the day after Christmas in front of (probably) 7,000 people.
In real life terms, there may not have been a bigger dichotomy between victory and defeat than that on Saturday.
As for the actual game? Houston jumped out to a 24-3 lead and cruised to a 24-13 win. Tom Herman concludes his first regular season as a head coach with a 12-1 record, a conference title and nine wins by double digits.
In the state of Texas there are 20 Division I football programs spread across seven conferences. Only Herman‚Äôs Cougars won theirs.
8. The Nuggets‚Äô official New Year‚Äôs Six projections.
Orange Bowl: No. 1 Clemson vs. No. 4 OklahomaCotton Bowl: No. 2 Alabama vs. No. 3 Michigan State
Rose Bowl: Stanford vs. IowaSugar Bowl: Oklahoma State vs. Ole MissFiesta Bowl: Ohio State vs. Notre DamePeach Bowl: Florida State vs. Houston
And, for the record, The Nuggets‚Äô non-existent Heisman ballot.
1. Christian McCaffrey2. Derrick Henry3. Deshaun Watson
With special shoutouts included for Dalvin Cook, Trevone Boykin, Josh Doctson, Corey Coleman and Baker Mayfield.
9. The play of the season, and perhaps the decade. Here‚Äôs the situation: your team leads 14-9. Your defense is rocking, with three straight three-and-outs with a cumulative minus-9 yards of offense in those nine plays. It‚Äôs 4th-and-15. You‚Äôre a punter. What do you do? You punt the football.
Here‚Äôs what Clemson punter Andy Teasdall did.
Again, it‚Äôs not fourth-and-1, it‚Äôs fourth-and-15. FOURTH AND FIFTEEN! Poor Teasdall even made Dabo Swinney go un-Christian on him.
Andy Teasdall is my new hero, and should be yours, too.
10. Odds and Ends.
a. Congrats to Dino Babers, who leaves Bowling Green after two seasons with 18 wins and a MAC championship with a 34-14 destruction of Northern Illinois on Friday night. The Falcons have scored 28 points or more in 14 straight games dating back to last season.
b. On Sept. 27, Rocky Long and his San Diego State staff arrived at work at 1-3, losers of three straight. On Saturday night they hoisted a trophy as Mountain West champions, winners of nine straight games. The Aztecs fought back from three different deficits to fend off Air Force, 27-24.
c. From Oct 17 to the three minute mark of the second quarter Saturday, Southern Miss was on a ">310-105 scoring run. They were winners of six straight and appeared headed to a seventh. Then Western Kentucky woke up. The Hilltoppers tied the game by halftime and 38 of the game‚Äôs final 45 points on their way to a 45-28 win and a Conference USA championship.
d. It didn‚Äôt come in a conference title game, but Arkansas State clinched its fourth Sun Belt title in five years with a 55-17 thumping of Texas State.
e. ‚ÄúImpossible.‚ÄĚ That‚Äôs the only word I, or anyone else, would‚Äôve used heading into this season upon learning Texas would beat Oklahoma and Baylor ‚ÄĒ both away from Austin ‚ÄĒ and still miss a bowl. Charlie Strong‚Äôs Horns beat the Sooners and Bears by a combined 47-34‚Ä¶ and got outscored 150-30 in their four remaining games away from Austin. Texas shutout Baylor (led by its fourth-string quarterback Lynx Hawthorne) in the first half, then allowed the Bears to accumulate the bulk of their 66 rushes for 395 yards in the second half. A week after it ran for 403 yards and lost, Texas allowed 395 rushing yards and won.
That string¬†of facts seemingly can not exist, and yet here it is. Texas will be one of the most-curiously-watched college football teams in 2016.
f. A congratulations¬†are in order for Trent Miles and Georgia State. The Panthers entered this season without an FBS victory to their credit and entered their Nov. 14 trip to Texas State at 2-6. But the Panthers won that game, then beat South Alabama, then beat Troy and on Saturday went down to Statesboro and whipped rival Georgia Southern 34-7. An four-game winning streak by an average of 33-14 sends Georgia State to its first-ever bowl game.
g. Three 5-7 teams will play in bowls this winter: Nebraska, Minnesota and San Jose State. Feel free to hiss in their general directions.
h. Remember way back in August when North Dakota State and Montana kicked off the Division I season with a classic the Grizzlies pulled out in the last minute? Yeah, the Bison got revenge for that on Saturday. Hard. The Bison sent Bob Stitt and company packing with a 37-6 win, and the drive for five heads to its next stop against Northern Iowa next week.
i. Let‚Äôs¬†take a moment to appreciate the gilded stupidity that is the entire College Football Playoff selection committee process. This is a group of highly accomplished people that willingly flush two days of their impossibly busy weeks straight down their diamond-encrusted toilets, for six straight weeks, all in an effort to produce an entirely meaningless set of rankings.
Then, when Championship Weekend arrives and it‚Äôs time to get down to real, knuckle-cracking business, they¬†spend their Friday night eating out of a branded watermelon.
Then Saturday arrives and they sit in their leather thrones‚Ä¶ watching football.
All in an grand effort to accomplish the same thing you and I could do over a single beer.
God Bless America.
j. And finally‚Ä¶. this will be the final edition of The Nuggets until September. Thanks to all who read along, whether this was your first time or you were a weekly reader. Hopefully this added to your college football weekend routine, and here‚Äôs to next season.
Article by ArticleForge
Stanley Allison BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No.‚Äā72225. ¬†¬†¬†¬†Decided: May 21, 1997 Before the court en banc.Michele P. Esparza, Bryan, for appellant. Deena J. McConnell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bryan, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Appellant was convicted in April 1995 of a capital murder occurring on September 28, 1994. ‚ÄāTex. Penal Code Ann. ¬ß‚Äā19.03(a)(2). ‚Äā Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 37.071 ¬ß¬ß‚Äā2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. ‚ÄāArticle 37.071 ¬ß‚Äā2(g).1 ‚ÄāDirect appeal to this Court is automatic. ‚ÄāArticle 37.071 ¬ß‚Äā2(h). ‚Äā Appellant raises six points of error. ‚Äā We will affirm.
In his sixth point of error, Appellant complains that the evidence introduced at the punishment phase of the trial is insufficient to sustain a unanimous vote on the special issues concerning future dangerousness and mitigating evidence. ‚Äā He contends first that the evidence does not support a finding that he would be a future danger to society and, second, that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that there were no mitigating factors. ‚Äā See Art. 44.251. ‚Äā First, we will examine the sufficiency of the evidence regarding future dangerousness.
‚ÄÉInitially, we note that in examining the sufficiency of the evidence regarding future dangerousness, we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. ‚ÄāBarnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1994). ‚Äā In answering the special issues, the jury may consider all of the evidence adduced at the guilt innocence phase of the trial, in addition to the evidence presented at the punishment phase. ‚ÄāId. ‚ÄāThe evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's finding, shows the following: ‚ÄČAppellant intended to kill his former employer. ‚Äā After walking nearly two miles in pursuit of his plan, he became hot and decided to steal a truck. ‚Äā He went into the Adult Video Store in College Station, where Wayne Williams, the night clerk, was working alone. ‚Äā Appellant took from Williams the keys to his truck, the currency from the cash register, and the night's receipts. ‚Äā Appellant then shot Williams three times. ‚Äā Appellant fled the scene in William's vehicle, returned home and loaded the stolen vehicle with his gear. ‚Äā The items found in the vehicle included the murder weapon, ammunition, a brass knuckled stiletto, a bulletproof vest, a garrote, and a variety of survival gear. ‚Äā In a notebook seized by police, appellant had written his goals for the year, which included, ‚Äú30+ victims dead. 30+ armed robberies. ‚Äā Steal a lot of cars.‚ÄĚ ‚Äā Furthermore, on the day of his arrest appellant showed no remorse. ‚Äā We hold that the evidence presented in the instant case is sufficient to support the jury's finding regarding appellant's future dangerousness.
‚ÄÉSecond, we have previously stated that we will not review sufficiency of the evidence as regards the mitigation special issue. ‚ÄāMcFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). ‚Äā The weighing of mitigating evidence is a subjective determination undertaken by each individual juror, and we decline to review that evidence for sufficiency. ‚ÄāId., at 498. ‚Äā Finally, we have previously held that article 44.251 does not require this Court to conduct a sufficiency review of the mitigation issue. ‚ÄāId. ‚ÄāAppellant's sixth point of error is overruled.
‚ÄÉIn point of error one, appellant attacks the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to the authorities. ‚Äā He contends that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) because his unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent was not scrupulously honored.
At about 6:10 a.m. on the day of the murder, Department of Public Safety Trooper Garry Parker heard a description of a truck involved in the robbery in College Station. ‚Äā About an hour later, he saw a truck matching the description. ‚Äā He followed the truck until it pulled into a driveway. ‚Äā When appellant got out of the truck, Officer Parker ordered him to lie down. ‚Äā Deputy Flores of the Bastrop County Sheriff's Department soon arrived. ‚Äā Officer Parker gave appellant Miranda warnings, and appellant made somewhat incriminating statements. ‚Äā DPS Investigator Ashley happened to come upon the arrest scene, and stopped and called for a Texas Ranger to come to the scene. ‚Äā Investigator Ashley took a recorded statement from appellant (statement #‚ÄČ1) while they waited for the Texas Ranger. ‚Äā During that statement, when appellant was asked if he wanted to talk about ‚Äúthis thing‚ÄĚ he said ‚Äúno.‚ÄĚ ‚Äā Investigator Ashley asked if appellant was sure he did not want to get it off his chest, and appellant again replied, ‚Äúno.‚ÄĚ ‚Äā Investigator Ashley continued to question appellant, and appellant answered all his questions.
When Ranger Coffman arrived, he was not told of the statement that Investigator Ashley had just taken. ‚Äā Ranger Coffman read appellant the Miranda warnings and took another statement (statement #‚ÄČ2) from appellant. ‚Äā At about 8:45 a.m., Detectives Andreski and Prasifka of the College Station Police Department arrived on the scene. ‚Äā Detective Andreski gave appellant the Miranda warnings and took a statement (statement #‚ÄČ3) from him. ‚Äā Appellant was later placed in the Bastrop County jail. ‚Äā Detective Andreski learned that police had obtained an arrest warrant for appellant. ‚Äā At 10:55 a.m. appellant was taken before a magistrate in Bastrop County and was warned pursuant to Article 15.17. ‚Äā Appellant was returned to the jail and fed lunch. ‚Äā The detectives then transported appellant back to the College Station police department. ‚Äā There, at about 2:00 p.m., Detective Andreski again gave appellant the Miranda warnings. ‚Äā Following these warnings, appellant was asked if he would consent to a search of his apartment. ‚Äā He agreed orally and later signed the consent form. ‚Äā From 2:01 p.m. until 2:39 p.m., appellant gave yet another statement.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress all four statements. ‚Äā The trial court granted Appellant's motion to suppress as to the first, second, and third statements but denied the motion as to the fourth. ‚Äā Appellant's fourth statement, however, was never introduced into evidence before the jury. ‚Äā We have held that where evidence obtained as a result of an interrogation has not been used, the appellate court need not entertain a complaint attacking admissibility of that evidence. ‚Äā e.g., Kraft v. State, 762 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (when statement is not used by State either as evidence or otherwise to obtain a plea or conviction appellate court need not entertain a point of error attacking admissibility of that evidence); ‚ÄČStiggers v. State, 506 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (no evidence obtained as a result of alleged illegal arrest was introduced into evidence, therefore, no reversible error); ‚ÄČFerguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908, 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (overruled on other grounds) (‚ÄúWhere no evidence obtained as a result of a search is introduced in evidence, no error with respect to such search is presented for review‚ÄĚ). ‚Äā Thus, even if the denial of his motion as to the fourth statement were error, it would appear that because the fourth statement was not introduced at trial, appellant would be unable to show harm in the trial court's refusal to grant the motion to suppress. ‚Äā Tex.R.App.Proc. 81(b)(2). ‚Äā Point of error one is overruled.
In point of error two, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his apartment. ‚Äā The police conducted this search pursuant to a written consent to search form that appellant signed. ‚Äā Appellant contends that the consent to search and the resulting items found were obtained as a result of the Miranda violation alleged in his first point of error. ‚Äā He argues that the evidence obtained should be excluded as fruits of illegal activity in accordance with Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) and Article 38.23. ‚Äā We disagree.
‚ÄÉThe ‚Äúfruit of the poisonous tree‚ÄĚ doctrine espoused in Wong Sun does not apply to mere violations of the prophylactic requirements in Miranda: ‚ÄČwhile the statement taken in violation of Miranda must be suppressed, other evidence subsequently obtained as a result of that statement (i.e. the ‚Äúfruits‚ÄĚ of the statement) need not be suppressed. ‚ÄāMichigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 452, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2368, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974); ‚ÄČOregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 314, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1296, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). ‚Äā The rule in Wong Sun requires suppressing the fruits of a defendant's statement only when the statement was obtained through actual coercion. ‚ÄāTucker, 417 U.S. at 448-449, 94 S.Ct. at 2365-67; ‚ÄČElstad, 470 U.S. at 314, 105 S.Ct. at 1296.
‚ÄÉBoth Tucker and Elstad involved the failure to give the required warnings rather than the failure to scrupulously honor warnings given. ‚Äā See Tucker, 417 U.S. at 435, 94 S.Ct. at 2359; ‚ÄČElstad, 470 U.S. at 300, 105 S.Ct. at 1288. ‚Äā Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has addressed whether the TuckerElstad rule applies to the fruits of statements made in the latter context.2 ‚ÄāBut the principle is the same: ‚ÄČmere noncompliance with Miranda does not result in a carryover taint beyond the statement itself. ‚Äā The failure to scrupulously honor a suspect's invocation of his right to remain silent by continuing questioning is not necessarily coercive. ‚Äā In finding an absence of coercion in Tucker, the Supreme Court noted that no legal sanctions, such as perjury or contempt, attached to a refusal to answer questions. ‚Äā417 U.S. at 445, 94 S.Ct. at 2364. ‚Äā Moreover, the case was unlike classical examples of coercion, which ranged from torture, to prolonged isolation from family or friends in a hostile setting, to a seemingly endless interrogation designed to exhaust the accused. ‚ÄāId. at 448-449, 94 S.Ct. at 2365-67. ‚Äā Likewise, continuing questioning after an accused's invocation of his right to silence does not, by itself, involve torture, isolation from family and friends, endless interrogation, the attachment of legal sanctions to the refusal to answer questions, or any other coercive activities. ‚Äā One federal circuit has expressly applied the Tucker Elstad rule to the failure to scrupulously honor a suspect's invocation of his Miranda right to counsel. ‚ÄāKrimmel v. Hopkins, 44 F.3d 704, 708-709 (8th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 56 F.3d 873 (1995). ‚Äā We hold that the TuckerElstad rule applies to the failure to scrupulously honor the invocation of Miranda rights. ‚Äā In the absence of actual coercion, the fruits of a statement taken in violation of Miranda need not be suppressed under the ‚Äúfruits‚ÄĚ doctrine of Wong Sun..
‚ÄÉThe absence of a federal exclusionary rule, however, does not preclude the application of Article 38.23, which requires the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the law. ‚ÄāState v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 272-273 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (Article 38.23 does not incorporate ‚Äúinevitable discovery doctrine‚ÄĚ). ‚Äā Instead, whether a recognized exception to a federal exclusionary rule also applies to Article 38.23 depends upon whether the exception is consistent with the language of Article 38.23. ‚ÄāJohnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 749-751 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (attenuation of the taint doctrine consistent with ‚Äúobtained‚ÄĚ language in Article 38.23); ‚ÄČDaugherty, 931 S.W.2d at 268 (inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with ‚Äúobtained‚ÄĚ language in Article 38.23). ‚Äā The state exclusionary rule provides in relevant part:
No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.
Article 38.23(a) (emphasis added). ‚Äā The question that concerns us here is whether a violation of Miranda requirements constitutes a violation of the ‚ÄúConstitution or laws of the United States of America.‚ÄĚ
In one case, we stated that Miranda fell within the ambit of Article 38.23. ‚ÄāAlvarado v. State, 853 S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). ‚Äā But, this statement was clearly dicta for two reasons: ‚ÄČ(1) if Miranda had applied in that case, the federal exclusionary rule would have applied, so that reliance upon Article 38.23 would have been unnecessary, and (2) we held that Miranda did not apply, so we had no reason to reach the exclusionary rule question. ‚Äā See Alvarado, 853 S.W.2d at 21 (holding that Miranda does not apply to statements taken in foreign jurisdictions; ‚ÄČ‚ÄúBecause this is a question of interpretation of Miranda and whether it applies, we fail to see how the state and federal exclusionary rules would differ‚ÄĚ).
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the Miranda warnings are not themselves rights protected by the federal Constitution but are merely prophylactic measures designed to safeguard the underlying right against compelled self-incrimination. ‚ÄāDavis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); ‚ÄČNew York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2630-31, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); ‚ÄČTucker, 417 U.S. at 444, 94 S.Ct. at 2363-64. ‚Äā The Miranda rule ‚Äúsweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself,‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúmay be triggered even in the absence of a Fifth Amendment violation.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄāElstad, 470 U.S. at 306, 105 S.Ct. at 1292. ‚Äā The rule often ‚Äúprovides a remedy even to the defendant who has suffered no identifiable constitutional harm.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄāId. at 307, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 (emphasis added). ‚Äā A violation of the rule is not itself a substantive illegality but merely affords a legal, albeit irrebuttable, presumption that the right against compelled self-incrimination has not been intelligently exercised. ‚ÄāId. at 306 n. 1 & 310, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 & 1293-94.
The above discussion of Supreme Court precedent shows that the Miranda rule is simply a judicially imposed rule of evidence: ‚ÄČquestioning in violation of Miranda is not itself illegal; ‚ÄČthe answers to such questioning are simply inadmissible in court. ‚Äā This rule of evidence was formulated out of a concern that a bright-line rule might be necessary to adequately protect a defendant's constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, but even in Miranda, the Court ‚Äúdisclaimed any intent to create a ‚Äėconstitutional straitjacket‚Äô and invited Congress and the States to suggest ‚Äėpotential alternatives for protecting the privilege.‚Äô‚ÄČ‚ÄĚ ‚ÄāElstad, 470 U.S. at 307 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 (citing and quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624). ‚Äā Hence, the Miranda requirements embody an exclusionary rule or remedy rather than a substantive right or entitlement. ‚Äā Statements taken in violation of Miranda are not obtained in violation of the law; ‚ÄČthey are simply statements that are subject to a judicially imposed prophylactic rule of exclusion, whose purpose is to safeguard a constitutional right. ‚Äā Therefore, mere violations of the Miranda rule are not covered by the state exclusionary rule contained in Article 38.23.
‚ÄÉAppellant contends in his supplemental brief that his statement was obtained through actual coercion. ‚Äā If true, both Wong Sun and Article 38.23 would require a taint analysis. ‚Äā But, appellant does not explain how investigator Ashley's questioning was coercive, and after reading the record, we discern no actual coercion present. ‚Äā Neither Wong Sun nor Article 38.23 requires a ‚Äútaint‚ÄĚ analysis in the present case. ‚Äā Point of error two is overruled.
Appellant maintains in his third point of error that his fourth statement and evidence derived therefrom, including the consent to search and the items seized, were inadmissible because the arresting officer failed to comply with Art. 15.17.3 ‚ÄāRegarding the arresting officer's alleged impropriety, Appellant states in his brief:
‚Ä§ The Appellant was not taken directly to the magistrate in Brazos County, Texas but to the police station in violation of Art. 15.17 Tex.Code Crim.Proc. ‚Äā The error was preserved throughout trial. ‚Äā This error was not harmless.
Appellant fails to cite in the record to where this error was preserved. ‚Äā Nevertheless, contrary to appellant's assertion, the arresting officer complied with Article 15.17. ‚ÄāArticle 15.17 and Article 15.18 require that a person who is arrested be taken before a magistrate in the county of arrest in order to be given his magistrate's warnings and have bail taken if allowed by law. ‚Äā Officials took appellant before a magistrate in Bastrop County, the county of arrest, where he was given his magistrate's warnings. ‚ÄāArticle 15.17 requires nothing more. ‚Äā Appellant's third point of error is overruled.
‚ÄÉAppellant in his fourth point of error contends that the trial judge erred in not hearing appellant's motion for a new trial within the required 75 days. ‚Äā See Tex.R.App.Proc. 31(e). ‚Äā Appellant was sentenced on July 26, 1995, and filed a timely motion for new trial on August 25, 1995, with a request that the motion be set for a hearing. ‚Äā Without objection from appellant the trial judge set a hearing for October 12, 1995, which fell outside the 75-day period. ‚Äā After a rescheduling, the trial judge held the hearing for October 27, 1995, again without objection from appellant.
By failing to object to the untimely setting, Appellant has failed to preserve his complaint that the trial judge should have held a timely hearing. ‚Äā Tex.R.App.Proc. 52(a). ‚Äā Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled.
In appellant's fifth point of error, he complains that ‚Äú[t]he trial court erred after evaluating the evidence at the motion for new trial hearing and stating the trial court would deny the motion for new trial.‚ÄĚ ‚Äā As noted in the previous point of error, the trial judge held a hearing on appellant's motion for new trial, even though more than 75 days had passed after sentence was imposed. ‚ÄāTexas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(e) states in pertinent part:
(1)‚ÄāThe court shall determine a motion for new trial within 75 days after date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court.
(3)‚ÄāA motion not timely determined by written order signed by the judge shall be considered overruled by operation of law upon expiration of the period of time prescribed in section (e)(1) of this rule.
Thus, Appellant's motion for new trial had been overruled by operation of law before the trial court held the hearing. ‚Äā Appellant cannot complain of the trial court's failure to grant a new trial because the trial court had no authority to do so. ‚Äā See State ex rel. Cobb v. Godfrey, 739 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). ‚Äā Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
1.¬†¬†‚ÄÉUnless otherwise indicated all future references to Articles refer to Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.¬†¬†‚ÄÉIn one case, this Court addressed a claim that certain overheard admissions made by the defendant to his mother over the telephone were the fruit of an earlier statement obtained in violation of Miranda. ‚Äā Autry v. State, 626 S.W.2d 758, 763-765 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). ‚Äā The earlier statement violated Miranda because the accused's invocation of his right to remain silent was not honored. ‚ÄāAutry, 626 S.W.2d at 763. ‚Äā In holding that evidence of the subsequent conversation was admissible, we analyzed the issue under the attenuation of the taint doctrine and the independent source rule. ‚ÄāId. at 764-765. ‚Äā We found any taint to be attenuated but did not address whether an attenuation analysis was even necessary.
3.¬†¬†‚ÄÉAppellant frames his argument in terms of all statements, but all except the fourth statement were suppressed.