NO. 07-06 -027 7-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 B JU LY31, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ GEORGE RAY

HOLMES, AP PEL LANT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 15 9 T H/ 2 1 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF A NG EL IN A CO UNT Y; NO . 26, 009; HO NO RA BLE D AVID V. W ILSO N, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON A p p e l lan t G e o rg e R a y

H o l me s a p p e a l s fro m h i s c o n v i c t i o n b y j u r y o f a s s a u l to f a publ icse rv ant a nd hi s resul ti ng se ntenc e of ei g ht y ears i mpri sonmenti n the Ins ti tu ti o nal Di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Throug h four is sues , app ell ant cont end s thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in de nying his mot ion for new trial, his coun sel p rov i de d i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e, a nd t he e v i de nc e i s l eg al l y a nd fac tu al ly i ns uffi c i en t to s up po rt hi s c on v i c ti on . W e affi r m.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 22.01( a) and (b ) (V er non 200 7)
. This i s a thi rd deg re e 1 felony puni shabl e by

i mpri sonmentfor a ny

ter m of not more tha n 10 y ears o r les s t han 2 y ears. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.34 (V er non 200 3)
. Ac cordin g ly , a p p e lla nt’ s s entenc e w as enhanc ed pursuantto Tex . Pe nal C ode 2 Ann . § 12. 42 (Ve rnon 200 3). 2 Back g ro und Appel lan t w as ind ic ted for ag g ra v ated ro b b er

y and ass aul t of a pu bli c s er v ant, a pol ic e o f ficer , oc cur ri ng i n 2005. The i ndi ctmental so cont ain ed an enhanc ement 1 p a ra g ra p h , s e t t i n g fo rt h a p p e l l a n t ’ s p r e v i o u s fe l o n yconv i c t i o n fo r u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f a motor v ehi cl e. The i ndi cte d c harg es w ere tr ied tog ether
.

2 At t ri al, Officer

Sta rl an Gl aw son tes ti fied th at he respon ded t o a c all f rom Off ic er Rob ert Sc ott to prov ide bac k- up for the s top o f a car i nv olv ed i n a ro bber

y . The sus pect , ide nti fied by

hi m at t rial as appel lan t, fled, a nd Gl aw son pursued. H e c aug ht ap pel lan t, y ell ed, “ Stop. Pol ice. ” W hen he tr ied to g ra b appel lan t by the shoul ders, appel lan t s pun around t o the l eft and hi t G la wson i n the neck w it h w hat fel t l ik e a c los ed- fist punch
. Gl aw s on t es ti fi ed t ha t i t hu rt an d i nj ured h i m. Off ic er Sc ott tes ti fied si mil ar ly
. He sai d the off ic ers ran after the fleei ng appel lan t a n d G la wson first caug ht ap pel lan t. W hen Sc ott re ached them, Gl aw son tol d hi m that w hen he tr ied to detai n appel lan t, appel lan t t ur ned around an d hi t hi m in the throat. The ju ry ac q uitted a ppel lan t of the firs t deg re e ag g ra v ated ro bber y ch arg e butfound him g uil ty

of ass aul t of a pu bli c s er v ant. Appel lan t fil ed a moti on for new tr ial and on i ts den ial, f iled this ap pea l.3 Ana ly sis Appel lan t’ s p oin ts of e rro r a ll focus on G law son’ s t est imony aboutw hic h hand a p p e lla n t u se d to st rik e hi m in th e ne ck
. O n cro ss -e xam in a ti o n , t h e fo llo wing e xch a n ge occ ur re d: App ellant ’s coun sel: S ir , wh ich han d are you alleging tha t he struck y ou w it h, hi s r ig ht or

hi s l eft hand? Gl aw son: I bel iev e i t w as his ri g ht ha nd bec ause, w hen he spun aroun d, he spun aroun d to his lef t. And so that w oul d make i t, I bel iev e, hi s r ig ht ha nd. Appel lan t t est ified i n hi s defense, and deni ed str ik ing Gl aw son. H e al so tes ti fied he had no mobil ity

i n hi s r ig ht ar m beca use of a 2002 gunsh ot w ound. H e deni ed he w as capabl e of pu nc hi ng or s tr i k i ng s om eo ne w i th hi s r i g ht ar m. As k ed to de s c r ibe his impai rment , he sai d he had an arti fici al elb ow , and he “ did n’thav e the proper therapy , and itfroz e up on me.” The prosec utor as ked appel lan t i f he had medi cal records to ba ck up his claim of

impa irmen t. App ellantrespon ded thathe cou ld “prov ide th em for y ou. ” Ineff ect iv e As si sta nce of C ounse l Appe lla n t’s i neffect iv e as si sta nce cl aim is bas ed on his tr ial co unsel ’s fail ure to int ro duce his medi cal records at t ri al to s how tha t h e wa s phy si cal ly i ncapa ble of commi tti ng the off ense for w hic h he w as charg ed.4

Str ickl and v . Washi ngton, 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.E d.2d 674 ( 1984) and He r n a n de z v . Sta te, 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) se t fort h the tw o- prong ed tes t that must be sa ti sfied 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 Str

ickl and tes t, an appe ll ant mus t sh o w th a t couns el' s p er formance w as defici ent. "This req uires show ing thatco unsel made er ro rs so se ri ous that couns el w as not f u n ct io n ing as the 'c ounse l' g uaranteed the d efendant by the Si xth A mendment." Str ickl and, 466 U. S. a t 687 ; Young v. State, 991 S.W .2d 835 , 837 (Tex. Cr im.A pp. 199 9). T h is p a rt o f the tes t c ar ri es "a s trong presumpt ion thatco unsel 's co nductfall s w it hin the wid e r a n ge o f

reason able profession al assistan ce.” Ahm adi v. Sta te, 8 6 4 S
. W
. 2 d 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, 381, 106 S. Ct . 257 4, 91 L.E d.2d 305 ( 1986)
. T hus, a record tha t is sil entas to cou nsel’s strateg y g enerall y

i s n ot s uff ic ien tl y

dev elo ped t o enable a p p e llant to ov er come t he pr esumpt ion of eff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. See Ry lan der v. St ate, 101 S. W .3d 1 07 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) (s tati ng , “[w]e hav e prev iou sl y sta ted that the re cord on directappeal w il l g enerall y

not be s uff ic ien t t o show that couns el' s re present ati on w as so defici ent a s t o meet t he first par

t of the Str ic kl and sta ndard as the re asona ble ness of couns el' s c hoi ces o ft e n involv es facts 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)
.5

Und er the sec ond par

t of the Str

ickl and tes t, th e a p p ell ant mus t s how thatthe defici ent perfor mance pre jud ic ed the defense. Str ickl and, 466 U. S. a t 687
. This req 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 w ords, th e ap pellan t mu st show that the re is a r e a sonab le probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l’ s u nprofessi onal e r ro rs , t h e r e s u l 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 court sho uld no t try to secon d guess trial counse l’s tac ti ca l d e cis ion s t hat d o notfall bel ow the threshol d of the obj ect iv e s tandard of reaso nab lene ss . I d. 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 el’ s a ss is tanc e i s e ff ect iv e, t he c our t mus t l ook at c ounse l’ s represen tation of the defendant as a w hol e, an d notmerely at is ola te d e rro rs . 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 mustbe fir mly founded in the rec ord. Thom pson v. State, 9 S .W .3d 8 08, 8 13 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. Appel lan t c ontends the fail ure of hi s t ri al couns el to ha v e hi s medi cal records av a i l a b l e fo r

a d mi s s i o n a s e v i d e n c e c o u l d n o th a v e re s u l t e d fro m a re a s o n a b l e tr ial str ateg y . Th e S t a t e p o i n t s o u t t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s o n t r i a l b o t h fo r t h e a s s a u ltand aggravated rob bery charg es, an d the med ical records to w h ic h a ppe llant ap pare ntly is referring me ntion t hath is 2 002 gun shotwound was su f fered in a n alterca tion w ith po lice off ic ers. The Stat e als o poi nts to sta tements in the re cords that the jur y co uld hav e tak enDuring his trial testim ony, app ellant ’s counse l asked him to hold up his rig ht arm 3 and i nq uired as to his rang e of moti on. W e need not e x amine both Str ickl and prong s i f one can not b e met. Blum enstetter 4 v. State, 135 S.W .3d 234, 24 2 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2004, no pet .) , citi ng St rick lan d, 466 U. S. a t 697
. 6 as cont ra ry

to appel lan t’ s t est imony , and posit s that couns el reason abl y co uld hav e c hosen a s trateg y

of si mply

hav ing appel lan t des cr ibe h is p rio r in jur y and impai rmentfrom t he w it ness st and rather

than att empt t o es tabl is h i t w it h medical records. W e agree w it h the 3 Stat e. See S tr

ickl and, 466 U. S. at 689 (n oti ng there are count les s w ay s to p ro v ide ef fective assistance in any giv en ca se). T he reco rd d oes notd em onst rate tha t coun sel’s decis i on s fel l b el ow

t he t hres ho l d of t he o bj ec ti v e s ta nd ard of rea s on ab l en ess. Acc ordin g ly , w e w il l not s pecul ate o n the reason s b ehi nd c ounse l’ s a cti ons w it h reg ard to use of appell ant’ s medi cal records at t ri al. See Jacks on v . St ate, 877 S.W .2d 7 68, 7 71 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 94) (also declining to speculat e on counse l’s reaso ns for trial decision). Appel lan t has not met the f irst prong of the Str ickl and tes t and w e ov er ru le his thi rd poi nt

4 of error. Den ial of Mo ti on fo r New T

ri al In ap pel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r, he conte nds the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by deny ing hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial . In hi s mot ion , app ell ant c hal len g ed th e s uff ic ien cy of theAppel lan t w as a p p o in te d a diff erent a ttor ney to file a moti on for new tr ial and 5 represe nt ap pellan t on ap pea l. The hear ing ended w it h appel lan t’ s c oun se l a sk ing the tr ial co urt t o w it hhol d i ts 6 ruling until counse l w as ab le to ob tain m e d ic al records in ad missible form. The record re fle c t s t h a t c o u n s e l l a t e r s e n t t h e t r i a l c o u rt a l e t t e r w i t h t h e me d i c a l r e c o rd s i n pr oper form. Four days later, th e trial court de nied app ellant ’s motio n for new trial. 7 evidence to supp ort his conviction and challen ged the ef fectiveness of his trial counse l’s a ss ist a n ce . Th e m o ti o n w a s d e n ie d afte r an evid e n ti a ry he a rin g.

5 6 Unde rlyi n g app ellant ’s comp laint he re is his conten tion th at his m edica l records, prese nte d to th e trial court for its conside ration in ruling on h is motio n for new trial, conc lu sive ly s h ow ed hi s i nabi li ty to commi t t he offense for w hic h he w as conv ic ted. Con si ste nt w it h hi s t ri al tes ti mony , app ell ant test ified at the motion heari ng thatthe 2002 g unsho t w ound l eft h im w it h a l imi ted rang e of moti on i n hi s r ig ht el bow and li mite d mov ement i n hi s r ig ht ha nd. In hi s arg ument on this poi nt of error , appell ant rei terates hi s c ontent ion tr ial co unsel w as inef fective. Hav ing a lr e a d y a ddre ssed th at con ten tion, w e focus o n ap pellan t’s compl ain t of the deni al of his moti on for new t rial
. It is w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s s ound discre t io n to grant or den y a mo tion for new trial. W e do not distu rb the trial cou rt’s deci si on unl ess i t a b u se d i ts dis creti on. W aller v. Sta te, 931 S.W .2d 6 40, 6 44 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1996) , citi ng App lem an v

. St ate, 531 S.W .2d 8 06, 8 10 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1 9 7 6 ) ( o p . o n r e h ’ g )
. A t r i a l c o u rt a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n “ w h e n i t a c t s u n r e a s o n a b lyor w ithou t regard fo r any guiding l egal principles.” Mo ntgom er y v . St ate, 810 S.W .2d 3 72, 380 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 0) (op. on reh’g)
.The medical records ind ic ate a ppel lan t’ s t re atment dur ing the y ears 2 002 and 7 2003. As noted, the of fense for w hic h appel lan t w as conv ic ted w as commi tted in 2005.

8 At t ri al, Officer

Gl aw son tes ti fied th at he bel iev ed appel lan t str uck him w it h hi s r ig ht han d w hile ap pellan t ma intain ed th at he did noth it him an d cou ld nothave done so becau se of the la ck o f m o b il ity of his r ig ht el bow

and hand. Appel lan t’ s c ontent ion on appea l i s s i mp l y th at hi s mo ti on for ne w tr i al s ho ul d ha v e be en g ran te d be cause his me dical records, provi ded to the trial court before it s r u li n g on th e mo tion, conclusively demonst ra ted h e w as phy si cal ly i ncapa ble of str ik ing the off ic er as al leg ed. 7 W e no te initially t h a t app ellantdoe s not cite u s to aut hority holding a trial court abuse s i ts dis creti on by deny ing a ne w

tr ial on t he bas is of ev ide nce that w as av ail abl e to the defendant but not int ro duced at tr ial
. Cf
. W all ace v. State, 106 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 07- 08 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; State v. Moor e, 240 S.W .3d 3 24, 3 28- 29 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2007, pet. re f’d) , citi

ng Tex . Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar t. 40.001 (V er non 200 6) ( new tr ial mustbe grant ed where ma terial evidence favorable to th e accu sed has b een discovered since trial). W e need not a ddr e ss thatproposi ti on here. The medic al re cords cont ain ed i n the app ellate record do co nta in state me nts ind icating app ellant ex perien ced stif f ness, “fr eez ing ” and loc ki ng of his ri g ht elbow

and hand, but w e do not ag re e theydemons trate he was “ physically

in capa ble” of

co mm itting th e of

fense . Moreover, the Sta te’s case did not res t on p ro o f t h a ta p p e l l a n th i tt h e o ffi c e r w i t h h i s r i g h th a n d
. H a v i n g re v i e w e d t he enti re record, w e agree w it h the Sta te t he j ur y co uld hav e bel iev ed Gl aw son w as confused or m istaken a s t o w het her app ellantst ruck h im w ith his rig ht or le f t han d an d still fo und him9

g uil ty of ass aul ti ng the off ic er . W e find no abuse of di sc re ti on in the tr ial cour t’ s deni al of appel lan t’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial and ov er ru le his first is sue. Suf ficiency of

the Evidence In ap pel lan t’ s remaini ng i ss ues, he c hal len g es the s uff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce to suppo rthi s c onv ic ti on. In rev iew ing i ss ues of leg al suffici ency , an appel lat e c our t v iews t he evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable t o t h e ve rdict to de term ine w het her a ration al fact finder co uld hav e fou n d e a ch elementof the o ff ense bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. S we a r i n g e n v . S tate, 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 95 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Con ner v. Sta te, 67 S.W .3d 192, 19 7 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) , citi ng Jack son v. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 19, 9 9 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 ( 197 9). If , base d on all the evidence, a reaso nab ly -mind ed jury mu st nece ssar il y ente rtain a reaso nab le dou bt of the de fend ant ’s g uilt, du e proce ss re q uires that w e re vers e and order a j udg ment of ac q uittal
. Swear ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95, citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 415, 423 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 507 U. S. 9 75, 1 13 S. Ct . 142 2, 12 2 L.E d.2d 791 ( 1993)
. A factua l suffici ency

rev iew of the e v ide nce is “ barely di sti ng uis habl e” from t he l eg al suf f iciency rev iew

und er Jackson v. Virginia
. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06). A factu al suf f iciency rev iew

conside rs w het her the ev iden ce supp orting g uilt, tho ugh legally suf f icient, is so w eak th at th e jury ’s v erdict see ms clea rly w rong and m anif estly unju st, or evi den ce con trary to the v erdict is such t hatthe jury’ s v e rd ict is a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id.; W atso n v. State , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Johns on v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1 , 1110

(Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. In a factual suff ic ien cy rev iew , w e ag ain co nsi der al l the e v ide nce, but n ow i n a n e u tr a l li g ht. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414
. Al thoug h an appel lat e c our t’ s a uthor ity

to re view f a ctual suffici ency per mits the cour

t t o dis ag re e w it h the fact fin der ’s dete rmi nati ons, ev en to a li mite d deg re e thos e c oncer nin g the w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the e videnc e, t he appe ll ate c our t mus t ac cord the m due deferenc e. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625 ; Johns on , 23 S. W .3 d at 9. W hen there is a confli ct in the e v ide nce, to find i t factu all y ins uff ic ien t w e must first be abl e to say , w it h some o bje cti v e bas is i n the record, t hat t he g re at w eig ht an d prepondera n ce o f a ll t he ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdic t. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417
. Appel lan t w as found g uil ty of assaul t on a publi c ser v ant. Purs uant to Penal Cod e § 22. 01, t he St ate h ad th e burden t o prov e bey ond a re asona ble do u b t that appel lan t in t e n t io n a ll y, kn o win gl y, o r r e c k le s s ly c a u s e d b o d il y i n ju ry t o a n o t h e r p e rs o n t h a th e kn o ws is a pu bli c s er

v ant w hil e the publi c ser v ant is lawfully

disc harg ing an off ic ial duty
. Tex . Pe n. Co d e A n n . § 2 2
. 0 1 (a ) a n d ( b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 7 ). T h e re qu is it e m e n t a l s t a t e s o f in t e n t io n a ll y, know ing ly

and re ck les sl y

are defined by

st atute
. See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.03 (V er non 200 3)
. Bodi ly i nju ry is d e f in e d as “ phy si cal pai n, i ll ness or any i mpair ment of physical conditio n.” Te x . Pen al Code Ann. § 1.07 (a)(8) ( Verno n 20 03). From the off ic ers’ tes ti mony , a ra tional j ur y co uld co ncl ude t hat a ppel lan t c aused bod ily injury to o f f ic e r Glawson w hile the of f icer w as lawf ully

discharging his dut ies. Appel lan t’ s e v ide nti ar

y su ff ic ien cy

arg ument focus es ag ain on the ev ide nce he has l imi ted mo bility in his ri ght arm. As no ted , during his testim ony a ppe llant den ied he w as cap able11

of punchi ng or

st ri ki ng so meone w it h hi s r ig ht ar m. H e tes ti f ie d a lso, how ev er , t hat h e installs au to ste reo equipm entsuch as spe akers, ste reo de cks and a mp lifie rs. H e ackno w ledged su ch w ork required the use of tw o han ds “most[of

] the time. ” T he jury also ha d th e op po rtu ni ty

t o ob s er v e ap pe l l an t as he de mo ns trat ed the mo bi l i ty o f hi s r i g hta r m. W e concl ude t hat, v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the v erdict, the e v ide nce all ow ed a ration al fact f inde r to f ind ea ch elem entof the cha rg ed o f

fense beyond a rea sona ble doubt. Swear

ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95. I t i s l eg all y su ff ic ien t. For tw o reason s, w e find the ev ide nce factual ly suffici ent as w ell
. Fi rs t, ass uming the jury conclud ed a ppe llant use d his rig ht ha nd to strike the of f icer, w e f ind th e evidence of impai rmentto appel lan t’ s ri g ht arm is not so strong thatthe jur y ’s v erdict i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625
. Seco nd, w e hav e not ed our

ag re ement w it h the Sta te t hat t he j ur y rati onal ly

co uld hav e fo u nd app ellantguilty even if

it conclude d of

f icer Glaw son’s be lief

he w as struck by appellan t’s ri g ht ha nd w as mis tak en. The Stat e’s cas e did not re st on proof of w hic h hand appel lan t used to s tr ik e the off ic er . W e ov er ru le his remaini ng i ss ues on appe al. Hav ing ov er ru led the i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

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