### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 561 -CR

Har old M aur ic e Hunt e r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ASTROP COUNTY , 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 11,8 96 , HO NORAB LE TERRY L. F LENNIK EN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ury c o n v ic te d

H ar o ld M a u r ic e H u n te r

o f mu r d e r a n d a s s e s s e d h is p u n is h me nt at ninety -ni n e y e ar s in p r is o n an d a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 f in e . H u n te r c o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e r red by admitting a vide otape of

his statement to police bec ause it wa s not produced to him more tha n tw e nty da y s b e fo re tr ia l. H e a lso c on te nd s th a t he did no t kn ow ing ly , in te lli g e ntl y , a nd vo lun tari ly waive his rig ht to counsel befor e makinghis statement to police. Fina lly , he conte nds that he
re c e ive d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l at tr ia l. We a ff

ir m. Duri nga tw o- ho ur , v ide og ra

ph e d ses sio n, Hunte r dic tate d an d sig ne d a state me nt i n which he a dmitted that he was one of three men who stabbed Shawn Reilly and left him dead in a fi e ld. Hunte r sa id Re ill y wa s kille d to pre ve nt him fr om t a lki nga bo ut i lle g a l dr

ugsa le s. Hunte r s a id he tr ie d to a ve rt

the plo t and

tr ie d to wa

rn Re ill y , b ut n on e the le ss he ld him do wn and “ stu c k h im” in the neck w ith a four- inch blade. T he body was late r moved a

nd abandone d in a diffe rent fie ld.2 Ba strop County

Sheriff’ s I nvestig ator Clare nce Yarbr oug h descr ibed the discove ry
o f s c a t t e r e d h u m an r e m a i n s an d a C r i m e S t o p p e r ’ s t i p t h a t l e d t o t h e i n t e r

r o g a t i o no f

J a m e s R e i l l y. That interr og ation led to Hunter’ s arr est and a sear ch wa

rra nt for a ranc h wher e phy sical evide nce of the murde r—not specif ically linked t o Hunter—w as found. Othe r witnesses testified to the p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h t h e r e m a i n s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d a s m o s tp r o b a

b l y b e i n g t h o s e o f

S h aw nR e i l l y. Hun ter c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d b y a dmi tti ngthe vid e o r e c or din g of his statement bec ause his attorne y was not provided a

true, c omplete, and accur ate c opy of the re cording at least twe nty

day s befor e trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 38.22, § 3(a) (5) ( West 2005). I t is undisput ed that Hunter was not g iven his own copy of the re cordi n g. Ho weve r, the c ourt of
c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h a s h e ld t

hat th e State ne e d n ot g ive de fe ns e c ouns e l a c op y of th e re c or din g to
s a t i s f y t h e s t a tu t o r

y r e qu i r e m e n tt o p r o v i d e a c o p y: So long as de fense counsel is informed of the exist ence of the re cordingand pe rm itt e d r e a so na

ble a c c e ss t o a

cop y , th e purp os e of

§ 3 (a )( 5) ha s b e e n me t. Requiring actua l deliv e r

y w o u ld h a v e the adver se conse quence of excluding e vidence that is both relevant a

nd leg ally obtained whe re the defe nse has suffere d no harm but has had the o p p o rt unity

to evaluate and test the e vidence . I f the leg islature had intended to re quire a ctual deliver y , they could have used the word “ser ved,” “ g iven,” or “delivered” instead of “ provide.” Given the objec t sought by the statute and the c on se qu e nc e s o f t

he dif fe ri ngc on str

uc tio ns , w e ho ld t

hat th e wo rd

“ pr ov ide” in § 3(a) (5) mea

ns to “make a

vailable or

furnish.”
Lan e v . S tate , 9 33 S.W. 2d

50 4, 51 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Th e Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l App e a ls has also held that the State ma y not simpl y

wait un t i l a d efe ndant files a motion to suppress or a n objectio n t o t h e admission of such a r ecor ding, but must aff irmatively

turn over a

copy of the
rec ording timely

in order to satisfy

the statute. Se e Se lls v . S tate , 1 21 S.W. 3d

74 8, 76 3 ( Te x. Cr im.I t is undisput ed that, bef ore Ma rch 2006, t h e d i s t ri ct attorney ’s offic e did not have a 1 DVD player c apable of rea ding DVDs in the format provided or producing copies. The DV D play er a c qu ir e d in

Marc h 2 00 6 c ou ld r e a d s uc h D VD s, bu t no t c op y the m. H u n te r ’ s a tt o r

n e y s tate d th a t h e c o u ld

n o t h a v e v ie w e d

th e v id e o w h e nth e d is trict 2 attorney ’s offic e ac quired the e quipment in March be cause he wa s occupie d by a thre e- w e e k

v a c ation and moving into a new house and off ice. Hunter’ s attorney

called the prosec utor, askingto view the DVD the Fr id ay befor e the Monday

trial. The pr osecutor of

fer ed to meet Hunte r’s attorney over the wee kend, but Hunter ’s at t o rn ey wa s u n ab l e t o v i ew t h e r ec o rd i n g. 3 App. 2003). Rea d toge ther, these case s stand for the proposition that the State satisfies its statutory burden to provide a copy

of the re cordingby

informing the def

ense that it may

view the r ecor ding tw e nty da y s b e fo re tr ia l. Hunter c oncede s that h i s co u nsel was a war e in September

2005 that the State had a DVD rec ording of his statement. He asked to vie w it, but the district attorne y lacke d the prope r DVD play er. H u n t e r

f i l e d a m o t i o nr e qu e s t i n g a

c o p y , b u tt h a tm o t i o nw a s n e v e r r u l e d u p o n . In 1 Marc h 2006, the district attorney ’s offic e ac quired a suitable DVD pla

y er. There is no indication 2 that th e State inf

or me d H un ter’s a tto rn e y

of thi s a c qu isi tio n o r t

hat H un te r r e ne we d h is r e qu e st t o view the DVD be fore the Fr iday prec eding his J une 2006 trial. Ne verthe less, Hunter’ s attorney knew about the DVD and could ha ve viewe d it more than twenty day s befor e trial. The trial court did not
err by admitting the r ecor ding ove r Hunter ’s objection. Even if the c ourt err ed by admitting the v i d eo because Hunter’ s attorney was not informed of the acquisiti on of t he proper DVD play er more than twenty day s befor e trial, we are not persua ded that the err or was harmful beca use of the a dmission of Hunter’s conte mporane ous written
s t a t e m e n t i n w h i c h h e c o n f e s s e s t o c o m m i t t i n g t h e m u r d e r . T h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t i s e s s e n t i a l l y aSection 3(a) (2) r equire s that, for a videotaped sta t ement to be admissibl e, the f ollowing 3 war ning a pplicable to wr itten statements be g iven on the videotape, but be fore the statement itself: No wr itt e n s tate me nt m a de by an accu sed as a

re su lt o f c us tod ia l in te rr og a tio n is admissible as evidenc e ag ainst him in any criminal proce eding unless it is shown on the fa c e of

the state me nt t

hat: (a ) t he a c c us e d, pr ior to makin g the state me nt, e ith e r re c e ive d fr om a ma g istra te the war ning pr ovided in Article 15.17 of this code or r ecei v ed fr o m the per son to whom the statement is made a war ning that: . . . (3) he has the rig ht to have a lawy er prese nt to advise him prior to and during any questioning . . . . T e x . C o d e C r i m . P r o c . A n n . art
. 3 8
. 2 2 , § 2 ( W e s t2 0 0 5 ) ( r e qu i r e m e n t s a d o p t e d b y id. § 3). 4 tr ans c ri pti on

of the or a l st a te me nt sh ow n on the vid e o e xce pt that so me of the re pe tit iou s st a te me nts
are excluded. N o s ig n if

ic an t s tate me n ts ar e s h o w nin th e v id e o th a t a

r e n o t s e t o u t i nth e w r itten statement. In light of the contents of the written statement and the remai n d er of the trial, the additional admission of the video di d not aff ect his substantial rig hts. See Tex. R. App. P . 44.2(b);
see als o B ag

he ri v . S tate , 1 19 S.W. 3d

75 5, 76 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); c f. Ge e v . Lib e rty

Mu t. F ire In s. Co ., 765 S.W .2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1989).

Hunter next contends that he did not knowing ly , intelligently , and voluntarily waive his r ight to counsel whe n making his statement to police. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 38.22, § 3(a) (2) ( West 2005). There is no dispute that Ba strop County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment I nvestig ator 3 Clarenc e Ya

rbroug h apprised H unter o f hi s rig ht to counsel and g ave him the wa rning s require d b y Miranda v. Arizona , 3 84 U. S. 4 36 (1 96 6) . I t is a lso un dis pu te d that Hunte r a c kn ow le dg e d th os e ri g hts in wr iti ng and sig ne d a wa ive r of tho se ri g hts be fo re makin g the state me nt. Hunte r c on te nd s, ho we v er , t h at he invoked his rig ht to counsel and c ould not therea fter va lidly waive that rig ht wi tho ut t he a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l.5 Once an ac cused ha s invoked his rig ht to counsel, interrog at i o n b y the police must stop until counse l is provided or until the acc used himself initiates c ontact with police. Dinkins
v . S tat e , 8 9 4 S
. W
. 2 d

3 3 0 , 3 5 0 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i n g Minnick v . Mississippi , 498 U.S. 146, 153 (1990))
. When an accuse d’s i nvocation is unclea r, ambig uous, or equivoca l, the interrog ating
o f f ic e r s ar e n o t r e qu ir e d

to a u to mati c a ll y

s to p th e in te r

v ie w. Id. at 351-52. The y may continue questioning the acc used to asce rtain whe ther he wishes to speak to a n attorney

or contin u e the questioning w ithout the assistance of c ounsel. Da vi s v. United States , 512 U.S. 452, 462 (1994). Pol ic e may

no t us e su c h c lari fic a tio n a s a g uis e to e nc oura g e , c oe rc e , o r i nti mid a te the a c c us e d to make a statement. J

am ail v . S tate , 787 S.W .2d 372, 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). I n revie wing an alleg ed invocation of the rig ht to counsel, a revie wing court must look at the totality of t he circ umstances surr ounding the interrog ation and alleg ed invocation to determine whe ther a n
acc used’s stateme nt can be construed a s an ac tual i n v ocation of the rig ht. Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d
a t 35 1. Th e inq

uir y is a n o bje c tiv e on e : w he the r a re a so na ble of fi c e r, un de r s imi lar c ir c ums tanc e s, would have unde rstood the statement to be a reque s t for a

n attorney

or mere ly

one that mig ht be invoking the r ight to counse l. See id. (q u o t i n g Davis v. U nited States , 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994)). Waiver is shown as a matter of law with reg ar d t o t h e ri ght to an attorney during pretria l questioning if a

n acc used (1) who has not yet reta ined or been appointed counsel, (2) de cides voluntarily

not to rely

on his rig ht to counsel, and (3) that decision i s made with the under standing that he could r emain silent and reque st a lawy er and that the State could use any statement he g ave
a g a in s t him. Ar ab zade

ga n v . S tate , 2 40 S.W. 3d

44 , 4 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 07 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; see als o R ob ins on v . S

tate , 8 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d 2 1 6 , 2 2 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 1 ) ( ci t i n g Pa tte rso n v . I lli no is ,6

487 U.S. 285, 297 (1988)). Adefe ndant who has retained counsel cannot waive the rig ht to counsel without the involvement of that counsel. Arabzadegan , 2 4 0 S
. W
. 3 d at 4 9 (c i t i n g Ho llo way

v . S tate , 78 0 S. W.2 d 7 87 , 7 95 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 )) . Wh ile the State be ars the burd e n o f p ro vin g a va lid
w a i v e r o f t h e r i g h tt o c o u n s e l , t h e d e f e n s e b e ar s t h e b u r d e nt o p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f ana t t o r n e yclient re lationship invalidating unilatera l, uncounseled w aiver
. Id. at 53-54.

The followingexchang e in the direc t e x amination of I nvestig ator Yar broug h perta ins to whe the r H un te r w a s r e pr e se nte d o r i nv ok e d h is r ig ht t o c ouns e l: Q. Okay . And what, if a

ny thing, to the be st of

y our re collection did he a sk y ou about a lawyer? A. He a sked me do I think he needs to have an attorney prese nt or have his lawy er. Q. Ok ay . H e a lso ind ic a te d to y ou that he ha d h a d a

n atto rn e y

fo r 2 0 y e ars , so me thi nglik e that? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. Ok ay . A nd

wh a t w a s y our r e sp on se to h is s tate me nt? A. I f h e wa

nte d a n atto rn e y Ic ou ld n ot c on du c t a

n in te rv ie w w ithhim
. Q. Okay . Did you ask him if he wa nted to continue to talk to y ou or if he w anted a n a t t o r n e y? A. I asked him did he wa

nt an attorne y

and did he wa

nt to continue to talk to me. Q. And what was his response ? A. He late r s a id t

hat he wo uld

g o a he a d a nd ta lk to me, he do n’ t se e wh a t it c ou ld hurt
.We note that Hunter’ s trial counsel was appointed and that both the reque st f or appointed 4 counsel a nd the appointment of c ounsel occ urre d afte r the intervie w in question was complete d. 7 Cross -e x am i n ation reve aled that Hunte r’s que ry whether he nee ded a la

wy er pr ompted another office r to interrupt the que stioning to discuss with Yarbr oug h whether Hunter ha d invoked his rig ht to counsel, re quiring the interviewto stop: Q. At t hat poi nt afte r, whe n he first said that, you interpre ted it—acc ording to y our re po rt —a nd Se rg e ant D aniels in te rp re te d it —a c c or din g to your r e po rt —a s h im a sk ingfo r a

lawy e r, c or

re c t? A. Ye s. Q. An d w he n y ou wa lke d ba c k int o the ro om, that’ s wh a t y ou tol d h im, Ic an’ t ta lk to y ou beca

use y ou want a la

wy er. A. But he waived his r ights and stated that, Iwill continue to speak with y ou without my a tto rn e y pr e se nt. So h e wa ive d h is r ig hts a t th a t po int
. The trial c ourt did not err by co n cl u d i n g t hat Hunter did not have counse l or unequivoca lly

invoke his rig ht to counsel befor e wa iving his right t o counsel. The attorney -client relationship i s contrac tual and re sults from the mutual ag ree ment and under standing of the pa rties
conce rned. Arabzadegan , 240 S.W .3d at 49. To establish an attorney -client re lationship, the parties must e x plicitly or by

their conduc t manifest an intention to cre ate it. Id. at 50. The only evidenc e of an exis ting r elationship is Yarbroug h’s ag ree ment that Hunter sa id “something like” that he ha d

“ ha d an atto rn e y ” fo r t

we nty y e ars . T hat do e s n ot i nd ic a te an e xistin g , mutua lly a g re e d r e latio ns hip
conce rning this case. No r do e s the re c or d e sta bli sh an inv oc atio n of the ri g ht t o c ouns e l. A t mo st, 4 Hunter a sked if he should g et a lawy er. Hunter did not, by asking that question, unequivoca lly asser t8

his right to counse l. In re H.V

. , 252 S.W .3d 319, 325 (Tex. 2008) (citing , e.g ., Davis v

. United States , 5 12 U. S
. 45 2, 45 8 ( 19 94 )) ; se e als o S off ar v . Co c k re ll , 300 F.3d 588, 595 ( 5th Cir. 2002); Dinkins , 894 S.W .2d at 352. The trial court did not err by overr uling Hunter’ s objection to t he
a dmi ssi on

of the state me nt b a se d o n h is c ha lle ng e s to the wa ive r o f t he ri g ht t o c ouns e l. Hunte r c on te nd s th a t he wa s d e nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of tr ia l c ouns e l. We e va luate claims of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l ag ainst the standar d set forth in Strickland v. W ashington
. See 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7 ( 19 84 ); He rn an de z v . S tate , 988 S.W .2d 770, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n decidinga cla im of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, we must deter mine whether

an atto rn ey ’s p er fo rm ance was de ficient a nd, if so, whether

that defic iency

prejudice d the def

ense. Strickland , 46 6 U .S. a t 68 7; Tho mp so n v . S tate , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 9 9 ). An attorne y ’s perf ormanc e is defic ient if it falls below an obje ctive standard of re asonable ness. Strickland , 46 6 U .S. a t 68 8; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. I n deter mining whether an attorney ’s per formanc e wa s defic ient, we a

pply a strongpresumption that t h e attorne y ’s conduc t was within the rang e of
rea sonable prof

essional assistance
. Id. a t8 1 4
. W e d o n o ts p e c u l a t e a b o u tana t t o r

n e y’ s s t r a t e g y. Bl e v ins v . S

tate , 1 8 S
. W
. 3 d 266, 271 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). We revie w counse l’s eff ectivene ss in light of the totality of the repr esentation a nd particula

r circ umstances of

eac h case
. Thompson , 9 S
. W
. 3 d at 8 1 3 . Def icient per formanc e is prejudicia l when, but for the attorney ’s unprofe ssional conduct, ther e i s a reasonable pr obability that the outcome of

the proc eeding would have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 812. A r e a so na ble probability

is a probability

sufficie nt to undermine confide nce in the outc ome. Strickland , 4 66 U. S.
a t 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. Absent both showing s, we c annot c o n cl u d e t hat there hasHad counsel viewed the video sooner, he would have e liminated the proce dural a rg ument 5 fo r i ts e xclu sio n. Pa ssi ve ly c re a tin g a po ssi ble pr oc e dura l ba sis fo r e xclu sio n ma y have be e n th e be st a va ila ble str a te g y

fo r s up pr e ssi ngthe vid e o o f t he state me nt. 9 been a brea kdown in the adver sarial proce ss that r ender s the result of a trial unreliable
. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813.

Hunte r c on te nd s th a t hi s c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c ti ve b e c a

us e he did

no t a de qu a te ly prepa re f or trial. The core issue is his failure to r ev i ew t h e v i d eo of his statement to police a nd to obtain a ruling on its admissi bility befor e trial. Hunte r’s stateme nt was the only evidenc e linking him to t he mur de r. Hunte r c on te nd s th a t c ouns e l’s in act io n re g ard ingthe vid e o h a mpe re d h is counsel’s a

bility to plea bar g ain, to conduct a dequate discovery in advanc e of trial, and to c onduct voir dire a

nd make an opening statement beca use he did not know if the video would be admitted. Hunter c omplains that his counsel filed only one pretrial m otion—reg arding discovery —which wa s
never hear d or ruled upon due to a di scover y ag ree ment, which Hunter contends was not followed or enforce d. His counsel called no witnesses during the guilt-innoce nce pha se, and c alled only one witness during the punishment phase.

Hunter ha s not show n that his c ounsel was ineffe ctive. He doe s not show that there
we re available witnesses with exculpatory or otherw ise helpful testimony to offer who wer e not called. Trial counsel did call a w itness at punishment who was a f riend a nd co-w orker

who testified reg ardingHunter’ s g ener osity , g oodness, and lack of violent tendencie s. Hunter doe s not describe any motions or objections that should have be en made , much less cha ng ed the outcome of the c ase. Whil e counsel likely should have examined the video of the statement sooner , he did upon being 5
a pp oin te d o bta in t

he fi le whi c h c on ta ine d H unte r’ s w ri tte n s tate me nt i n w hic h h e c on fe sse s to participating in the murde r as one of three persons stabbingthe victim. H unter has not show n that10

rea ding the statement did not adequa t el y ad v ise counsel of what the video of

the making of the statement would show, at least for purposes of discovery and investigation. Counsel obje cted to the admission of both the written and video statements. The alleg ed defic iencies in repre sentation do not overc ome the strongpresumption that counsel’s pe rfor mance was a dequate
. Even if the f

ailure to re view the video s o o n er were so eg reg ious that it rendere d
c ouns e l in e ff

e c tiv e , h owe ver, Hunte r d oe s n ot s ho w p re jud ic e fr om c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e . H is written statement c onfessingto the murder was a dmitted. I t alone supplies the evide nce suf ficient to support the conviction. Combined with the evidenc e that th e murder occ urre d, it provides evidenc e to support the punishment. The video of the making of the stateme nt merely allowed the jur y to w a tc h th e fo rm

ulatio n of the state me nt. We are no t pe rs ua de d that the re is a re a so na ble possibili ty

that the outco m e wo u l d have be en diffe rent but for any defic iency

in counsel’s perf ormanc e. Affir

med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: De cembe r 31, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh