See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 1.11 (Ve rno n 2 00 3), § 2 2.01 1 (V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0000 6-CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
HEC TOR

M ORA LE S, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lant, H e ct or

M orale s, entered an open pl ea of g uil ty to three c ounts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and three c ounts of ind ecency w it h a chi ld. F or the 1 t h re e c o u n t s o f a g g ra v a t e d a s s a u l t , t h e tri al cour ts e n t e n c e d M o ra l e s t o t h re e l i fe sent ences to ru n c oncur re ntl y , and for each of t he three count s of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d,M or al es an d hi s t r i al coun sel t est i f i ed a t t he m ot i on f ornew t r i al hea r i ng. 2 2 the trial court senten ced Morales to a term of tw ent y y ears' conf inem ent , ea c h o f wh ich
w oul d r un c onsec uti v ely to the l ife s entenc es. Bythree is sues , Morale s c ontends thatthe trial court er re d in den y ing his motion for new trial and th at his plea w as involunta ry be c au s e tr i al c ou ns el ren de red i ne ffecti v e as s i s ta nc e. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On O cto ber

11, 2007, after Mo ra les entered his g uil ty pl ea, t he tr ial co urt i mposed sent ence. O n October 29, 2007, Mo ra les fil ed a ti mely moti on for new

tri al all eg ing : (1 ) "T he verdict in this cause is cont rary to th e law and the evidence ."; and (2) "Th e trial court has the d is creti on to g ra nt a new tr ial i n the i nterest s o f jus ti ce, as t h e C o u rt of Cr imi nal Appeal s h as emphasi z ed." M orale s d id not a ttac h any su ppor ti ng aff ida v it s t o hi s mot ion

. On De ce m b e r 10 , 2 0 0 7 , Mo ra le s f ile d an af f id a vit f ro m hi s t ria l co u n se l st a ti n g: I w as tr ial co unsel for [ Mo ra les ]. I beli ev ed he w as compet ent t o s tand tr ial and thathe un dersto od th e na ture of the pro ceed ings w hen he ente red his plea of "Guilty" to the Court. How ever, now I'm not sure he did. I base this on h is reaction to the Cou rt's pronou ncem entof sente nce in Cou rt

. He tur ned t o me after

the Cou rt 's dec is ion and sai d, "W hat d o e s th at mean? " He re all y didn' t unders tand w hat had justhappened. He did n'tco mpreh end the s entenc e of "Li fe w it h 20 y ears stac ked. " I tr ied t o ex pla in itto him ri g ht after the s entenc ing , buthe s eemed to st il l not comprehend the s it uati on. If he di dn'tunde rs tand the s entenc e after the ru li ng , I fear he di d not understa nd th e rang e of puni shmentpr ior to enter ing hi s p lea

. On D ecember

14, 2007, the t ri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on Mo ra les 's m oti on for new tr ial

. The State objected on the basi s that Morale s did not rais e i neffect iv e as si sta nce of
couns el in h is o ri g ina l moti on for new tr ial , and thattr ial co unsel 's aff ida v itw as not fil ed
w it hin the thi rty -da y p e riod. The t ri al cour t ov er ru led the Stat e's obj ect ion , and the tr ial
c o u rtgra n t e d t h e S t a t e ' s ru n n in g o bje c t io n t o t h e t e s t im o n y. 2W hen an appel l ant ent er s an open pl ea ofgui l t y , he wai v es t he r i ght t o ap peal anynon j ur i sdi ct i onal 3 def ect s, ot her t han t he v ol unt ar i ness of hi s pl ea, t hat occur r ed bef or e ent r y of t he pl ea so l ong as t he j udgm ent o f g u i l t w a s re n d e re d i n d e p e n d e n t o f , a n d is n o t s u p p o rte d b y , t h e a l l e g e d e rr o r. S e e Yo u n g v . S ta te , 8 S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 6 -6 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); L e w is v . S ta te , 91 1 S

. W

. 2d 1, 4-5 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 95 ). 3 At the hea ring, M orales argued thattrial counse l rendere d inef fective assistan ce becau se in his aff ida v it , t ri al couns el sta ted t hat M orale s "may not hav e understo od w hat he w as g etti ng hi msel f into at t he ti me of t he ple a and itj ustti es w it h the l awy er pursui ng the p lea and g oin g forw ard, may be k now ing t h a t h is cl ien t di dn'tfull y understa nd
ev er ythi ng ." Tri al couns el tes ti fied that he w as afrai d that Mo ra les di d notfull y understa nd the "c omplet e rang e of puni shment " ba sed on M orale s' s "respon se" after the trial court impos ed i ts sent ence. Ac cordin g to tr ial couns el, w hen he tr ied to ex pla in the s entenc e to Mo ra les after

the tr ial co urt i mposed it s sente nce, he o bser v ed th at M orale s d id not a ppear to un dersta nd. How ev er , tr ial couns el als o tes ti fied that before Mo ra les entered hi s p lea , tr ial co unsel "w ent ov er the ra ng e of puni shmentand [M orale s] appeared, h is respon ses
w ere appropr iat e to w hat w e we re tal ki ng about ." On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , t ri al couns el sta ted t hat h e bel iev ed Mo ra les understo od th e full rang e of puni shmentbefore he ent ered h is p le a
. T ri a l c o u n s e l a ls o co n c e d e d t h a tMo ra le s ' s re s p o n s e t o t h e se n t e n c e m a y h a ve been c aused by"shock ." On redi re ct ex aminat ion , tri al couns el sta ted t hat h e ex pla ine d to M orale s t he full rang e of puni shmentand that he c oul d g et t he max imum s entenc e. The tr ial co urt den ied M orale s' s mot ion for n ew tr ial

. This appeal ens ued. 3 III
. M OT I ON FO R N E W T R IAL By hi s first is sue, Mo ra les cont ends that the tr ial cour t er re d in deny ing hi s mot ion fo r n e w tr ia l o n t h e b a s is t h a tt ri a l c o u n s e l r e n d e re d in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e
. Sp e c if ic a ll y, Mo ra les arg ues his pl ea w as inv olu ntar y bec ause he di d notundersta nd th e c onseq uence sTro u t v . S ta te , 70 2 S

. W

. 2d 61 8, 61 9 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 85 ) ( en ba nc ) ( op
. on rehe ari ng ). 4 I d. 5 I d. 6 I d. 7 I d. 8 I d. at 620

. 9 4 of his pl ea due to t ri al couns el' s i neffect iv e as si sta nce. In hi s mot ion for n ew

tr ial , M orale s d id not a ll eg e that tri al couns el w as ine ffect iv e, and Morales did no t atta ch an y supp orting af

f idavits to the m otion . Ov er the St ate 's obj ect ion , t he tr ial co urt all ow ed Mo ra les to arg ue at the new tr ial hear ing that tr ial co unsel
re ndered i neffect iv e as si sta nce. In Tr out v . St ate , the defendant f il ed a ti mely m oti on for

newtri al al leg ing two acts 4 of jury miscon ductsupp orted bytw o a f f id a vits atta ched to the mot ion. The trial court 5 condu cte d a h ear ing on t he moti on and, ov er the Stat e's obj ect ion , al low ed th e defendant to rais e a thi rd act of j ur y mis condu ct that had not been ra is ed in the defendant' s mot ion for new tr ial

. The t ri al cour

t den ied the defendant's m o ti o n for new tr ial

. The c our

t of 6 7 appeal s c oncl uded t hat t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e g ra nted the d efendant's moti on for new tr ial on the basi s of t he thi rd act of al leg ed jur y mis condu ct, w hic h w as not i ncl uded i n the moti on. The c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s rev ersed, st ati ng : 8 Beca use the p ro per

functi on of the aff ida v it s i s t o suppo rt the moti on for new tr ial , w e hol d tha t t he al leg ed jur y m is condu ct conc er nin g the [thi rd act] w as not proper ly present ed by the moti on for new tr ial , shoul d not h a ve b een ente rt a ined by

the tr ial co urt atthe hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial and w as no t prope rly

preserved for app eal. 9 Here, Morales f iled a time ly m otion for new trial; howev er, the mot ion did not raiseSee id. ; s ee al s o S ta te v . M oo re , 225 S. W

. 3d 5 56, 570 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 7) ( concl udi ng t hat 10

" [s ]h o u ld th e tr ia l c o u r t r e f u s e to lim it its r u lin g to th e o r ig in a l m o tio n [f o r n e w tr ia l] a n d g r a n t r e lie fo n th e b a s is oft he a m endm ent ov ert he St at e' s obj ect i on, t he a ppel l at e c our t shou l d con si deronl y t he v al i di t y of t he or i gi nal and anyt i m el y am ended m ot i on f or new t r i al , and shoul d r ev er se an y r ul i ng g r ant i ng a new t r i al base d up on m att ers rai s ed for t he fi rst t i m e i n a n u nti m el y am en dm en t " ).

C h a rle s v . S ta te , 1 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). 11 Ex part e Mor

row , 95 2 S

. W

. 2d 53 0, 53 6 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 97 ) ( en ba nc ). 12 P e n a v . S ta te , 132 S. W

. 3d 6 63, 666 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 200 4, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng M artinezv. 13 S ta te , 9 8 1 S .W .2 d 1 9 5 , 1 9 7 (T e x . C rim A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); Ex part e G ibauit ch , 688 S. W

. 2d 8 68, 871 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 1 9 8 5 ) (p e r c u ria m ); D o rs e y v . S ta te , 55 S

. W

. 3d 22 7, 23 5 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 20 01 , no pe t

. ))

. I d. 14 5 the i ss ue of i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. Therefore, w e mustco ncl ude, under the
re asoni ng i n Tr

out , t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rts h o u ld n o th a ve e n t e rt a in e d t h e is s u e o f in e f fe c t ive assistan ce of coun sel at the mo tion for new trial hearing beca use it w as no t presen ted in the timely motion for new trial. 10 Non ethel ess , a tr ial co urt onl y abuse s it s dis creti on i n deny ing a mot ion for n ew tr ial
w hen no re asona ble v iew of the record c oul d s uppor t t he tr ial co urt' s ru lin g. W hen an 11 appel lan t c hal len g es the v olu ntar ine ss of his pl ea on the b asi s o f i neffect iv e ass is tanc e of
c oun sel, w e revi ew "(1) w het her cou nsel's ad v ice w as w ithin th e range of comp ete nce dem and ed o f

atto rneys i n crimina l cases and if no t, (2) w het her the re is a re a s o nab le p ro b a b il it y t h a t , b u tfo r c o u n s e l' s e rro rs , h e wo u ld n o th a ve p le a d e d gu il ty a n d wo u ld h a ve ins is ted o n g oin g to tr ial ." There is a pr ima facie show ing thata g uil ty pl ea w as entered 12 know ing ly

and v olu ntar il y

i f the record establ is hes that the tr ial co urt proper ly admoni shed the d efendant abou t t he c o n se que n ces of hi s p lea

. O nce an ac cus ed attes ts that he 13 understa nds the n ature of hi s p lea and that itw as v olu ntar y , he has a he avy

burden t o p ro ve t h a th is p le a wa s in vo lu n t a ry. 14I n i t s wr i t t en a dm oni shm ent s on r ange ofpun i shm ent , t he t r i al cour t i nf or m ed M or al es t hat he was 15 c h a rg e d w i th o ff e n s e s th a t w e re fi rs t a n d s e c o n d d e g re e fe l o n i e s
. T w o s e c ti o n s w e re m a rk e d w i th a n "x ." T he f i r s t s e c t i o n s t a t e d : ( 1 ) " Fi r s t De g r e e Fe l o n y , § 1 2

. 3 2 : O n e g u i l t y o f a FI RST d e g r e e f e l o n y shal l be p u n is h e d b y im p r is o n m e n t f o r L if e o r f o r a n y te r m o fn o t m o r e th a n 9 9 ye a r s o r le s s th a n 5 ye a r s , a n d in a d d i ti o n to im p ris o n m e n t, b y a f i n e n o t to e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ."; a n d ( 2 ) "S e c o n d D e g re e F e l o n y P u n i s h m e n t, § 12

. 33 : O ne gu i l t y of a S E C O N D de gre e fe l on y sh al l be pu ni s he d by i m pri s on m en t for an y t erm of no t m ore th a n 2 0 ye a r s o r le s s th a n 2 ye a r s , a n d in a d d itio n to im p r is o n m e n t, b y a f in e n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ." F in a lly, i n a docum ent ent i t l ed, " D ef endan t ' s St at em ent U nder st andi ng Adm oni shm ent s, " si gned by M or al es, he i ni t i al ed a par agr aph st at i ng, " I und er st and t he a dm oni shm ent s gi v en t o m e i n wr i t i ng by t he C our t , I know t he r ange ofpun i shm ent app l i cabl e i n t hi s cause , and I am awar e of t he conseque nces ofm y ent er i ng a pl ea o f gui l t y or/ nol o con t ender e. " Fi nal l y , i n t he " C ounsel ' s C er t i f i cat e ofC onsul t at i on and C onsentt o W ai v er , " t r i al counsel cer t i f i ed t hat he " r ead and expl ai ned al l of t he C our t ' s w r i t t en adm oni shm ent s t o t he Def endan t and t he appl i cabl e r ange ofpun i shm ent and t he wai v erof r i ght s.
. . . T he Def endan t i s f ul l y awar e of t he c o n s e q u e n c e s o f [h i s ] p l e a , k n o w s th e ra n g e o f p u n i s h m e n t, a n d u n d e rs ta n d s a l l o f th e a d m o n i s h m e n ts ."

See Pena , 132 S. W

. 3d a t 666

. 16 6 Here the reco rd su ppo rts th e trial co urt's f inding tha t Morales's plea w as v olun tary and thattrial counse l did not ren der inef fective assistance of

coun sel. On re d irect
ex aminat ion , t ri al couns el sta ted, "I did ex pla in to him the f ull rang e of punish ment and that he co uld be facing the m aximum in our plea. W het her or nothe un dersto od th at, I felt like he di d pr ior

to the h ear ing ." Tri al couns el cons is tent ly m a int ain ed th at he bel iev ed th at M oral es u nd ers to od t he ran g e of pu ni s hm en t be fore he p l ea de d g ui l ty , bu t on l y b ec am e
conce rned af

ter he o bserved Morales's reaction to the trial court's sente nce. T he reco rd shows t hat t ri al couns el infor med M orale s o f all of his opti ons, M orale s c hose to pl ead gui lt y in a n at te m p t t o rec e ive d e fe rre d ad ju d ica ti o n , t ria l co u n se l e xpla in e d th e f u ll ra n ge of punis hment, and t he tr ial co urt admoni she d M o ra le s b efore he ente re d hi s p lea

. Fur ther more, on d irectex aminat ion , w hen as ked, "D id [tr ial co unsel ] ex pla in to you th e
ra ng e of puni shment ?" M orale s repl ied , "Y es. " In th is ca se , t he record es tabl is hes that the t ri al cour t proper ly

admoni shed the defendant abo ut t he conseq uence s of his plea. Therefore, there is a pri ma faci e s how ing 15 tha t Morales's guilty

plea was entered knowi ngly and v olun tarily

. M oreo v er, the re is 16See Ex part e Mor row , 952 S. W

. 2d a t 536

. 17 W e n o te th a t " [a ] j u d g m e n t o fg u ilt is n o t r e n d e r e d in d e p e n d e n t o f , a n d is n o t s u p p o r te d b y, a c la im 18 o fin e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e w h e n th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w o u ld h a v e p le a d e d n o t g u ilty h a d it n o t b e e n fo r h i s c o u n s e l 's a l l e g e d i n e ff e c ti v e n e s s ." S e e C a rd e n a v . S ta te , N o. 13- 06- 293- C R , 200 7 T ex. App. LEX I S 5650, at * 5 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jul y 19, 200 7, pet

. re f' d (m em o op
. , not desi gnat ed f or publ i cat i on) ( ci t i ng M a rtin e z v . S ta te , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 3 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f'd ))

. O n a p p e a l, M o r a le s d o e s n o t a r g u e th a t h e w o u ld h a v e p le a d e d n o t g u il ty, h a d i t n o t b e e n fo r tria l c o u n s e l' s a l l e g e d i n e ff e c ti v e n e s s
. See C ardena , 200 7 T ex. App. LEX I S 5650, at * 5 ( deci di ng, " out of an abund ance of c a u tio n ," to r e v ie w th e a p p e lla n t's c la im o f in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o fc o u n s e l b e c a u s e th e c la im w a s "a r g u a b ly r e la te d to a p p e ll a n t's v o lu n ta r in e s s c la im ," e v e n th o u g h th e a p p e ll a n t d id n o t c la im th a t b u t f o r h is c o u n s e l' s al l eged i neff ect i v eness, he woul d no t hav e pl ea de d gu i l t y and woul d ha v e go ne t o t r i al )

. Si m i l ar l y , her e, be c au s e M ora l es ' s cl ai m of i ne ffec t i ve a s s i s t an c e i s argu ab l y rel ated t o h i s vol un t ari ne s s c l ai m , w e h ave r ev i ewed hi s cl ai m out of an abund ance ofcaut i on. B o n e v . S ta te , 77 S

. W

. 3d 82 8, 83 5 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 02 ). 19 7 n o th in g in t h e rec o rd su p p o rt in g a f in d in g th a t c o u n se l's ad vice w a s n o t with in th e ran ge of competence d e m a n d e d o f attor ney s i n c ri minal ca ses
. Ba sed on our rev iew of the 17
re cord, w e c onc lude thatM orale s d id not o v ercome t he s trong presumpt ion thathi s t ri al
couns el prov ide d adeq uate ass is tanc e and that hi s plea w as v olu ntar il y ente re d. Thus, the t r i a l c o u rtd i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c re t i o n i n d e n y i n g M o ra l e s ' s m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l

. W e
ov er ru le Mo ra les 's first is sue. IV. I N VOLU N TA R Y P LEA By his secon d an d third is sues, Morales conte nds th at his plea w as involunta ry becau se tr ial co unsel w as ine ffect iv e. "I neffect iv e as si sta nce of c ounse l cl aims are not 18 built on retrospe ctiv e spe culatio n; th ey mu st 'be f irmly foun ded in the record.' T hatrecord must it sel f af

firmat iv ely demonst ra te the all eg ed ine ffect iv eness ." H ere, t here i s n othi ng 19 in t h e re c o rd su p p o rt in g Mo ra le s ' s co n t e n t io n s t h a tt ri a l c o u n s e l re n d e re d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e. Fi rs t, Mo ra les as ser ts that tr ial co unsel "admi tted in his aff ida v it

. . . thathe inad equate ly

advised the d efend antbefore the plea. " W e c o n c lu d e t his assertion is
w ithou t me rit. N owhere in the reco rd doe s trial counse l adm it thath e "inad equate ly8

adv is ed" M orale s. Next, Mo ra les arg ues that tr ial co unsel di d noti nform hi m thathe was onl y enti tl ed to deferred adj udi cat ion co mmun it y su p er v is ion i f the tr ial co urt made "a f inding in ope n cou rt tha t placing the defend ant on co mm unity supervisi on [was] in the be st int erestof the v icti m." There i s n othi ng i n the record s uppor ti ng a c onc lu sio n that tr ial
c o u n s e l p ro vid e d m is in fo rm a t io n t o Mo ra le s re ga rd in g d e fe rr e d a d ju d ic a t io n
. Ac c o rd in gl y,
w e overrule Morales's second and third issues. V. C ONCL US I ON W e affi r m.
LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 31s t day

of Aug ust , 200 9.