NO. 07-06 -025 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU LY24, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHNNIE L. FOST ER, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 5- 410483; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.

ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t J o h n n y

L e e F o s t e r

a p p e a l s fro m h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e o ffe n s e of poss ess ion of coc ain e and his resu lt in g s e ntenc e for a ter m of sev enteen y ears i n the In s ti tu ti on al D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m.See T ex. H eal t h & Saf ety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(b) (Vernon 200 3). Th is is a 1 sec ond deg re e felony

puni shabl e by

co nfinement for a ter m of not more than 20 y ears o r les s t han 2 ye a rs a n d a fine not to ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.33 (V er non 200 3)
. 2 Back g ro und Appel lan t w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h k now ing ly and int e n ti o n all y

pos ses si ng a c o n t ro l l e d s u b s t a n c e , n a me l y c o c a i n e , i n a n a mo u n t l e s s t h a n o n e g ra m. The 1 ind ic tment als o cont ain ed enhanc ement parag ra phs, set ti ng forth appel lan t’ s tw o prev iou s felon y convictions. Am ong the pretrial mo tions a ppe llant’s trial coun sel f iled w as a motion to sup press ev ide nce of the c ontroll ed s ubst a n ce s e iz ed atthe ti me of his ar re st. Ap pel lan t l ater infor med the cour

t of hi s i ntent ion to e n te r a n open ple a of g uil ty before the j ur

y , and he p le a d gu il t y a s ch a r g e d i n t h e in d ic t m e n ta n d e n t e re d p le a s o f “t ru e ” t o e a c h o f

t h e two enhancement pa ra g ra phs. The mat ter then proceed ed to the jur y for p ur poses of ass ess ing puni shment
. As ev ide nce bear ing on p uni shment , t he St ate p re se n te d the tes ti mony of the arresting Lub bock p olice of f icers. T estim ony showed tha t tw o of f icers w ere on bike pat rol, conducti ng su rv eil lan ce of a hous e s uspected t o be the s it e of il leg al dr ug di str ibu ti on. W hil e w atc hin g the house , t he officers s aw the car dr iv en by appel lan t par ked in front of the h ouse. O ff ice r Ch a vez tes ti fied th e c ar w as par ked il leg all y , t oo far from the cur b. Appel lan t g ot ou t of the car , w ent t o th e hous e and re tur ned a minut e or tw o l ater
. The off icers then approache d appel lan t and hi s p ass eng er . Ap pel lan t’ s i nabi li ty to produce a3

dr iv er ’s l ic ense led to further dete nti on and a pat- dow n. Dur ing the pat- dow n, on e off ic er not iced an odo r of

marijua na o n ap pellan t’s person and foun d m a ri ju a n a in his clothe s. App e l l a n tw a s p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t
. J u s tb e fo re t ra n s p o rtt o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n , anot her off ic er co nduct ed a sec ond pat -d ow n and found the coc ain e in appel lan t’ s left fro nt po ck et, lea din g to the i nst ant p ro sec uti on. The jur y as ses sed the p uni shmentw e hav e not ed. Present ing one is sue, appel lan t c ontends he recei v ed i neffect iv e a ss is tanc e of c o u n s e l a tt ri a l. He sp e c if ic a ll y co m p la in s t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l re n d e re d in e f fe c t ive assistan ce by failing to obt ain a ruling or request a hea ring on th e mo tion to supp ress, in w hic h he chal len g ed th e l eg ali ty of the d etent ion and search that led to the d is cov er y of the coc ain e. Ana ly sis Str ickl and v . Washi ngton, 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1 984) and Her nandez v. Sta te, 726 S.W .2d 5 3 , 5 7 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) se t fort h the tw o- prong ed tes t t hat mus t be sat is fied to prov e an ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el cl aim. U nder the firs t par t of the S t

r ick lan d t e st , an appel lan t mus t s how thatco unsel 's per

formance w as defici ent. "This req uires show ing that counsel m ade errors so ser iou s that couns el w as not functi oni ng as the 'c ounse l' g uar a n te e d the defendant by the Si xth A mendment." Str ickl and, 466 U. S. a t 687 ; Young v. State, 9 91 S.W .2d 8 35, 837 (Tex. Cr im.A pp. 199 9). This par t of the tes t c ar ri es "a s trong presumpt ion tha t co u n se l's cond uctfall s w it hin the w ide range of

reason able profession al assistan ce.” A h m a d i v . S ta te, 8 6 4 S .W .2d 776, 782 ( Tex .App. –For

t W orth 19 93, p et. re f’d) , citi ng Ki m m elm an v. Mor

ri son, 477 U. S. 3 65,4

381 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed. 2d 305 ( 198 6). Th us, a reco rd thatis si lent a s to coun sel’s strateg y g ene ra lly i s not s uff ic ien tl y dev elo ped t o enabl e appel lan t t o ov er come t he pr esumpt ion of eff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. See R yl ander v. Sta te, 101 S.W .3d 1 07 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ( sta ti ng , “ [w]e hav e prev iou sl y st ated that the record on directappeal w il l g enerall y

not be suffici ent to show that couns el' s represent ati on w as so defici ent a s t o meet t he first par

t of the Str

ickl and st andard as the re asona ble ness of couns el' s c hoi ces of ten inv olve s f acts th at do not ap pea r in the app ellate record”). The app ellantmust ov er come thi s presumpt ion by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. ; C annon v . St ate, 668 S.W .2d 4 01, 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. Und er the sec ond par

t of the Str

ickl and tes t, the a ppe lla n t must show thatthe defici ent per

formance pr eju dic ed th e defense. Str ickl and, 466 U. S. at 687. This re q uires showing tha t “counse l's errors w ere so seriou s as to de priv e the defend antof a fair trial, a tr ial w hose re sul t i s reli abl e." Id. In oth er words, the a ppe llant mu st show th at th ere is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l’ s un p ro f e ss ional er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. I d. S ee al so Young, 991 S.W .2d a t 837
. In ap plyi ng this test, an app ellate co urt shou ld nottry to secon d guess trial counse l’s tac ti cal dec isi o n s th at do not fall bel ow the threshol d of the obj ect iv e s tandard of re a sonab len ess . Young, 991 S.W .2d a t 837 , citi ng Sol is v. Sta te, 7 9 2 S
. W
. 2d 95, 100 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 90). An i ndi v idu al has a r ig ht t o effect iv e, no t er ro rl ess , represent ati on. Br idg e v . St ate, 726 S.W .2d 5 58, 5 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)
. In de ter mini ng w hether couns e l’s ass is tanc e i s e ff ect iv e, t he c our t mus t l ook at c ounse l’ s represent ati on of theAppel lan t file d a m o ti o n for new tr ial but itdi d notrais e a c hal len g e to tr ial 2 couns el’ s p er

formance. 5 defendant as a w hole , a n d n o t merely at is ola ted e rrors. Ex par te K unkle, 852 S.W .2d 499 , 505 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 3); C annon, 6 6 8 S
. W
. 2 d a t4 0 3
. An a ll e ga t io n o f in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e must be firml y founded i n the record. Thom pson v. State, 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. Appell ant a rg ues his tr ial co unsel co uld hav e had no reason abl e tr ial st ra te gy jus ti fyi ng hi s fai lure to pursue the motion to suppress to a r uli ng . He poi nts out his w as an open pl ea of

guil ty , w it h no ple a barg ain , and no reason appears for not present ing the suppress ion i ss ue to the cour t. Appel lan t furt her

arg ues that, base d on the p uni shment testim ony, the cou rt w ould have been constrain ed to g rant th e m o tion, preventing his conviction. App ellantcites An dr ews and other

ca ses i n w hic h courts hav e found an er ro r of c ounse l so ser iou s that no tr ial strateg y coul d hav e count ena n ce d it. See Andre ws v. State, 159 S.W .3d 9 8 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ; Butler v. Sta te, 719 S.W .2d 4 8 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 86). Appel lan t’ s c ontent ion m ustfail
. The record before us does not ex pla in w hy no h e a ri n g wa s h e ld o n t h e m o t io n t o su p p re s s . Re c a ll t h a ta ll e ga t io n s o f in e f fe c t ive 2 ass is tanc e of couns el must be firml y founded i n the record. Thom pson, 9 S .W .3d a t 813
. Not hin g i n the record s how s t hat a ppel lan t’ s t ri al couns el bears respon si bil ity for t he deci si on notto pursue the e ffort t o s uppress the ev ide nce. Ev en i f w e i nfer t hat h is tr ial coun sel w as respo nsible for it, such a de cision is not ou tside th e range of reason able professi onal as si sta nce. As the Stat e poi nts out, appel lan t i s b asi ng hi s c ontent ion on theLi kew is e, the fail ure to file a suppress ion moti on does not neces sar il y co nst it ute 3 ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. Yuhl v. Sta te, 784 S. W .2d 7 14, 7 17 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14 D is t.] 1990, pet. ref’d) ; El li s v . St ate, 677 S.W .2d 129 , 134 (Te x .Ap p.– Dallas 198 4, w rit th ref ’d). 6 tes ti mony

present ed dur ing the puni shmentphas e of tr ial foll o wing a guil ty pl ea. Base d on th is record, w e do not k now w hether tr ial co unsel w as aw are of other ev ide nce not pr ese n t e d o r k n e w o f o t h e r fa c t o rs b e a r i n g o n t h e a d mi s s i b i l i t y o f t h e s e i z e d d r u g s t hat w oul d h av e made p ursui t of the moti on frui tl ess . W e w il l not s pecul ate o n the reason s behin d tri al couns el’ s a cti ons. Jacks on v . St ate, 877 S.W .2d 7 68, 7 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 199 4). A mere show ing that couns el faile d to obtai n a ru li ng or a he ar ing on p re tr ial moti ons doe s n ot esta blish inef

fective a ssistance o f

coun sel. W

il ls v. Sta te, 867 S. W .2d 8 52, 8 57 3 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1993, pet. ref’d)
. Rat her , t ri al couns el’ s d eci si on w hether th to pu rs ue a ru li ng on a pretr ial moti on is w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi onal ass is tanc e. See W

ills, 867 S.W .2d a t 857
. This ca se is not li ke Andrew s. Other Tex as cour

ts hav e dec li ned t o find ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el in si mil ar ci rc umstan ces . I n Gr

eene v . St ate, 124 S.W .3d 7 89, 7 91- 92 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] st 2003, pet. re f’d) , t he c our t c oncl uded t hat b ecaus e the re w as nothi ng i n the record to show w hy couns el chos e not t o att empt t o hav e the i n- cour t i denti ficat ion su ppress ed, a ppel lan t coul d not m eet the f irst prong of the Str ickl and tes t. Gr

eene, 124 S.W .3d a t 791 -9 2, citi ng Bone v . St ate, 7 7 S.W .3d 8 28, 8 30 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. The same conc lus ion w as re ached i n Dav

is v. Sta te, 930 S.W .2d 765, 769 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dis t.] 1996, pet. st r e f’ d ) , i n w h i c h t h e c o u rt h e l d t h a t a p p e l l a n t fa i l e d t o s a t i s fy t h e fi rst pr ong o f Str ickl andThe St ate a ls o arg ues the motion to suppress proper ly w oul d hav e been deni ed, 4 e v e n u n d e r

t h e p u n i s h m e n tp h a s e t e s t i m o n y . W e d o n o ta d d r e s s t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . W e need no t ex amine both Stric kland prong s i f one can not b e met. Blum enstetter v. Sta te, 135 S. W .3d 234, 242 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2004, no pet .) , citi ng St rick lan d, 466 U. S. a t 697. 7 beca use, w ithou t testim ony by trial counse l, the court could n ot m ean ingfu lly add ress his re asons for

not fili ng a mot ion to suppress . See al so W hit ney v. State, 190 S.W .3d 7 86, 788 ( Tex .App. –For

t W orth 20 06, n o pet .) ( findi ng appel lan t fail ed to m eet t he first prong o f Str ickl and w here the record w as si len t reg ardin g w hy tr ial co unsel fail ed to req uesta re cord of the puni shmenthear ing or whe ther he o bje cte d to the fai lure to re cord the hea ring)
. Ev en as sumi ng thatthe deci si on abou t w hic h appel lan t c omplai ns can be lai d at the feet of his tr ial co unsel , app ell ant s ti ll has not ov er come t he presumpt ion that tr ial co unsel made the dec is ion in the ex er ci se of reason abl e professi onal jud g ment. Appel lan t has not met th e first prong of the Str ickl and test. W e overrule appe llant’s issue an d af f irm his conv ic ti on and sent ence. 4

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
Do not p ubl is h.