¶1ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2Appellant insists that we were in error in overruling his contention that a proper predicate had not been laid for the introduction of his written confession in evidence, under Art. 727, V.A.C.C.P., because the record does not show that he was duly warned before signing the statement.
¶3We have again examined the record in the light of such contention and find that Officer J. E. Hodges, the person to whom the confession was made, testified positively that before he took the statement from appellant (state’s exhibit #30), which was reduced to writing and signed by him, he gave appellant the legal warning printed therein. The contention is again overruled.
¶4We also remain convinced, as stated in our original opinion, that Escobedo v. Illinois, supra, is not applicable under the facts.
¶5Appellant further insists that we were in error in upholding the legality of his arrest and relies upon certain relatively recent federal cases, including Collins v. Beto, 348 F.2d 823 (5th Cir., 1965).
¶6 The fact that a warrant had been issued for appellant’s arrest as a parole violator distinguishes the case from those cited. Under the facts and circumstances shown, appellant’s arrest was lawful.
¶7The contentions are also made by appellant that his conviction should be reversed because his constitutional right to counsel was violated and evidence was suppressed by the district attorney’s office.
¶8While the record reflects that certain restrictions were imposed with reference to attorneys seeing appellant in jail, there is no showing that he was denied the right to see an attorney of his choice. The record does not support the contention that evidence was suppressed by the district attorney or any member of his staff. The contentions are overruled.
¶9Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
¶10Opinion approved by the court.