1
... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OF A PPEALS SEC OND D I STR I CTOF T E XAS FORT WORTH NO
. 2- 08- 420- CR
ERNE ST BE NTO N CO RDEL L APPE L L AN T V
. TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j u r y c o n v i c ted A p p e l l a n t Ern e st B e n to n C o rde l l o f t h e ft o f pro p e rt y u n d e r $ 1 ,5 0 0 , e n h a n c e d b y tw o p ri o r t h e ft o ffen se s. U p o n h i s p l e a o f t rue to t he enhan cem ent par agr aphs, w hi ch enhan ced t he offense t o a second- degr ee fel ony, t he j ur

y a ss es se d Appel l ant ’ s puni sh m entatt w ent y ye ars’ co nf i nem ent and a f i ne of

$10, 000
. The t r i al co ur ts ent enc ed hi m ac cordi ngl y.2
... St r i ck l and v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct
. 2052 , 2064

(1 9 8 4 ).

3
... I d. a t694, 104 S. Ct
. a t2068
. 2 I n t w o poi nt s, A p p e l l antcont ends t hathe had i neffect i ve assi st ance at t r i al an d t hatt he evi den ce i s fac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor th i s co nvi ct i on. Beca us e t he evi den ce i s fac t ual l y s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tA ppe l l ant ’ s con vi ct i on and be ca us e h e f

ai l ed t o s us t ai n hi s b u rd e n rega rdi ng hi s cl ai m of i nef fec t i ve a ss i sta n c e o f co u n se l , w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. In h i s f i rstpoi nt , A ppe l l antargue s t hatt r i al co uns el fai l ed t o provi de ef fec t i ve as si st anc e o f co uns el w hen he a rg u e d t o t he j ur y t hathe di d not b e l i e v e t h a tA p p e lla n tw a s in n o c e n ta n d a r g u e d t h a tA p p e lla n tw a s a t w o -b it c ri m i n a l
. T o p rov e i n e ffec ti v e a ss i sta n c e o f c o u n se l , a n ap p e l l a n t m u st sa ti sfy b o th p ron g s o f St r i ck l and
. 2 T h a t i s , h e m u s t d e m o n s tra te th a t h i s c o u n s e l ’s repres ent at i on fel l be l ow an obj ec t i ve st and ard of re a s ona bl ene ss ba se d on pr evai l i ng pr ofessi onal norm s , a nd t hat , butfor counsel ’ s er rors, t her e i s a rea so nab l e p roba bi l i t y he w oul d notha ve bee n c onvi ct ed. 3 Rarel y w i l l a cl ai m of i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el su cc ee d w i t hout a show i ng i n t he recor d— dur i ng t he t r i al , dur i ng a hear i ng on a m ot i on for new t r i al , or i n a ha bea s proce edi ng— al l ow i ng cou ns el t o exp l ai n w het her hi s ac t i ons or t he abs enc e o f

ac t i on i s p a rt o f h i s t r i al s t rat egy . There i s a s t r ong4
... M a ta v . S tate , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).
5
... I d. 6
... I d. 3 pres um pt i on t hat t r i al cou ns el ’ s ac t i ons w ere p ar tof a so und t r i al s t rat egy . 4 A rec ord t hati s si l entas t o t r i al co uns el ’ s ac t i ons doe s notrebu tt he p res um pt i on. 5 Un l e s s t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e , o n t h e i r f ace, i n e ffe ct i ve as si st anc e, i f t here i s no e vi den ce i n t he rec ord rebu t t i ng t he pr esum pt i on of ef

fect i veness, a revi ew i ng cou r tm ustconsi der how a t r i al coun sel ’ s act i ons f i tw i t hi n t he bou nds of pr ofessi onal nor m s. 6 A s w e rea d t he rec ord, i t i s cl ea r t hatt r i al co uns el w as argui ng t hatt he ju ro rs c o u ld f in d A p p e lla n ta n u n lik e a b le p e rs o n , a n d n o ta n in n o c e n tp e rs o n in m a t t e rs o f

d a ily life , b u tt h a tt h e fa c tt h a tt h e y d id n o tlik e A p p e lla n ta n d d id n o tt h in k h e w a s p o s s e s s e d o f c h ild lik e in n o c e n c e w a s n o ts u f f ic ie n tt o f in d h im gui l t y of

t heft b eyo nd a rea so nab l e d oubt
. Couns el w as ex pl ai ni ng t he di f ferenc e b et w ee n “ pure- dr i ven - sn ow ” i nnoc enc e and t he l ega l con ce pt of not gui l t y. A p p e lla n ta r g u e s t h a t t r ia l c o u n s e l’s u s e o f t h e p h ra s e s “ t w o -b itc r im in a l” a n d “ n o t i n n o c e n t” u n d e rm i n e d th e p re s u m p ti o n o f i n n o c e n c e , b u t th e re c o rd re v e a ls t r ia l c o u n s e l’s a p p a r e n tt r ia l s t ra t e g y . H e e x p la in e d t h a tb y “ t w o -b it c ri m i n a l ” h e m e a n t t h a t au th o ri ti e s k n e w o f A p p e l l a n t’ s tw o p rev i o u s th e ft7
... S t at e v. Bal der as , 91 5 S
. W
. 2d 91 3, 91 9 (Tex
. A p p .— H oust on [ 1st

D i s t.] 1 9 9 6 , p e t. re f’d ).

8
... S e e T h o m p so n v . S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).
9
... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § § 3 1 .0 1 (4 )(B ), 3 1 .0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 4 convi ct i ons and r ushed t o pr osecut e hi m . That is , tr ial counsel argued t hat because t hey w ere aw are of A ppel l ant ’ s cr i m i na l re c o rd, w hi ch t he j ury w as al so aw are o f , t he aut hor i t i es as su m ed hi s gui l tf rom t he beg i nni ng a nd di d not af ford hi m t he nor m al prot ec t i ons a ci t i z en l es s w el l kno w n t o t hem w oul d ha ve re c e i v e d . B a s e d o n th e re c o rd b e fo re u s , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t tri a l c o u n s e l ’s st rat egy fel l bel ow t he nor m of pr ofessi onal com pet ence. The factt hata t r i al st rat egy do es notw or k does notm ean t hat tr ia l c oun sel w as i neffect i ve. 7 Beca us e Appel l antha s fai l ed t o s us t ai n hi s b urden of provi ng i nef

fec t i ve assi st ance of coun sel by a pr epon der ance of t he evi dence, 8 w e over r ul e hi s f i rst p o i n t. In h is s e c o n d p o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e e v id e n c e is fa c t u a lly in s u f f i ci entt o sust ai n a ver di ctof gui l tbecause t her e i s i nsuff i ci entevi dence t hathe ex erci se d c ont rol ove r t he prope r t y w i t houtt he ow ner ' s c o n s e n tan d bec aus e n o va l ue of t he prope r t y a l l ege d t o ha ve bee n s t ol en w as es t abl i sh ed. To prove t heft , t he St at e m us tprove t hata perso n a ct ual l y e xerci se d c ont r ol ove r t he st ol en prope r t y. 910
... N e a l v . S tate , 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), c e rt .

deni ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W a tso n v . S tate , 204 S. W
. 3d 404, 414 (Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

11
... L a n c o n v . S tate , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W at so n , 204 S. W
. 3d a t414– 15, 417.

12
... W at so n , 204 S. W
. 3d a t417. 5 W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c y o f t h e ev i d e n c e t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den ce i n a neu t ral l i ght , favo r i ng ne i t her pa r t y. 10 W e t h e n a s k w h e t h e r t h e e v id e n c e s u p p o r t in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a lly s u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e r t h e le s s s o w e a k t h a tt h e fa c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is c le a r ly w ro n g a n d m a n ife s t ly u n ju s t o r w h e t h e r c o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly o u tw e i g h s th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e term i n a ti o n i s m a n i fes tl y u n j u st. 11 T o re v e rs e u n d e r t h e s e c o n d g ro u n d , we m us tde t er m i ne, w i t h so m e obj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he rec ord, t hatt he grea tw ei ght and prepo nde ranc e o f al l t he evi den ce , t hough l ega l l y su f f i ci ent , con t radi ct s t he v e rdict. 12 The e vi den ce s how ed t h a tA ppe l l antpurcha se d t w o Dyson vac uum cl ea ners att he G ranb ur y W al
- M ar t pha r m ac y cou nt er , l eft t he st ore t hrough t he aut om ot i ve depar t m ent , re- ent ered t he st or e t hr oug h t he gener al m erchand i se d oo rs w i t h a n e m pt y s ho pp i ng c a r t , a nd e xi t e d t he groc e r y do ors w i th tw o addi t i onal D yson vacuu m cl eaners t hat he had no tpai d for . O ne vacuu m w as i d e n ti c a l to th e tw o v a c u u m c l e a n e rs h e h a d p u rc h a s e d
. T h e o th e r w a s s i m i l a r,13
... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 1 .0 3 (e )(4 )(D ).
14
... 4 9 3 S .W .2 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 3 ).
15
... I d. a t529. 16
... I d. a t529– 30. 6 t he cos ts l i ght l y m ore. Appel l antpl ac ed al l t he vac uum cl ea ners i n hi s ca r an d l eftt he par ki ng l ot . Lat er , A ppel l ant ret ur ned t he t w o vacuum cl eaners he had pur c h a s e d t o a n o t h e r W a l
- Ma r ts t o re a n d e x c h a n g e d t h e t wo s t o l e n va cuu m c l e a n e rs a t th e G ra n b u ry s to re fo r a te l e v i s i o n a n d a D V D re c o rd e r. T h e s to re re pre s e nt a t i ve t e s t i f i e d t ha to ne o f t he s t ol e n va c uu m c l e a ne rs c os t$378
. 42. A l t hough he di d nott es t i f y t o t he exa ctva l ue of t he sec o nd s t ol en vac uum c l e a n e r, h e d i d te s ti fy th a t i t c o s t m o re th a n th e $ 3 7 8 .4 2 v a c u u m c l e a n e r. A p p e l l a n t sti p u l a ted to h i s tw o p ri o r t h e ft c o n v i c ti o n s. T h e refo re, w i th rega rd t o t he val ue el em ent , t he St at e w as requ i red t o prove onl y t hatt he val ue of t he m e rc ha nd i s e s t ol e n w a s l e s s t ha n $1, 500. 13 I n P r ic e v . S tate , 14 t h e Tex as C our tof

C r i m i nal A ppeal s faced a si m i l ar setof fact s. Pr i ce w as charged w i t h s te a li n g pr oper t y f rom a j ew el r y st or e w i t h an aggregat e val ue of over $50. 15 The ow ner di d not t es t i f y t o t he prec i se val ue of t w o of t he pi ec es of pr oper t y Pr i ce st ol e, al t hou gh he st at ed t hei r a ppr oxi m at e val ue. 16 T h e c o u rt hel d t hatt he evi dence pr oved the i t em s w ere st ol en and t hatt he val ue of each17
... I d. a t530. 18
... I d. 19
... S ee T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 1 .0 3 (e )(4 )(D ). 7 of t he i t e m s w a s m ore t ha n $50. 17 T h e Pr i ce cour tconcl uded t hatt he evi dence w as “cer t ai nl y suf

f i ci ent t o sust ai n t he al l egat i on of an aggr egat e val ue of over $ 5 0 .” 18 S i m i l a rl y , h e re th e S tate w a s re q u i red t o p rov e tha t t h e sto l e n p rop e rt y had on l y som e v a lu e u n d er $1 50 0, noti t s exactval ue. 19 A s i n Pr i ce , t he evi den ce here sh ow s t hat A ppe l l ant exe rci se d c ont rol ove r t w o Dyson vac uum cl eaners t hathe di d not pay fo r b u t t hathe t ook ou tof t he st or e, and i tal so show s t hatt he aggr egat e val ue of t he vacuum cl eaners w as som e val ue und er $1 50 0 b utm or e t han $ 75 6. 84 , based on t he t est i m ony t hatone of t he st ol en vacuum cl eaners cost$3 78
. 42 and t hat t he ot her vacuum cl eaner

costm or e. W e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l y s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt A p p e l l a n t’s c o n v i c ti o n . W e o v e rr u l e h i s s e c o n d p o i n t. H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f A p p e l l a n t’s p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r 1, 2009