court found that appellant was not in custody at any time during the questioning. We agree. When the circumstances show, as here, that a person is acting upon the invitation, urging, or request of police officers without any threat or coercion by the officers, that person is acting voluntarily and is not in custody. See, e.g., Nickerson v. State, 312 S.W.3d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd); Turner v. State, 252 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd); see also Delacerda, 425 S.W.3d at 386-88 (noting that the appellant voluntarily went with officers into police station to homicide division office for questioning and merely being questioned at stationhouse, by itself, does not constitute custody); cf. In re D.F.C., 312 S.W.3d at 714 (<HOLDING>). Our record reflects that appellant
holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof holding that fifth amendment custody is a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest holding that a defendant who was told several times he was not under arrest and who never asked to leave during an interview with investigators was not in custody holding that since petitioner made specific request for counsel before interview policeinitiated interview was impermissible holding that there was a restraint of movement to the degree associated with formal arrest when juvenile went to stationhouse for interview but magistrate read defendant his mircmda warnings defendants grandmother was excluded from interview despite her request and defendant was alone in locked interrogation room with armed officer