See T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. §§ 481. 10 2(3 )( D ), 48 1.11 5(a )- (b) ( V ern on 20 03 & S up p. 20 07 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0004 3-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
FR A NK L EON A RD H ASL EY, J R., A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 60t h Dist rict C ou rt of Oran ge C ou nty , T exas


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la A jur y f ound appell ant, Frank Leonard Hasl ey , J r. , g uil ty of poss ess ing l ess than one g ra m of coc ain e and, after findi ng thathe h ad tw o pr ior felony c onv ic ti ons, as ses sed 1 puni shmentat fifteen y ears’ i mpri sonm e n t. H asl ey appeal s t hroug h an attor ney -w ri ttenO n M ay 3, 20 07 , t hi s C ou rt gran t ed H as l ey ’ s m oti on t o fi l e t he pro-s e s up pl em en t al bri ef. 2 H asl ey had a t ot al of ei ght pr i or f el ony conv i ct i ons. 3 2 br ief and a pro-se su p p le m e n t a l b ri e f , wit h a t o t a l o f fo u r i s s u e s , a rg u in g i n e f fe c t ive 2
as s i s ta nc e of t r i al c ou ns el a nd i mp r op er s en te nc i ng
. W e affi r m. I. Back g ro und On Au gust 11, 20 04, Hasleyw as ap proa ched bytw o City of Orange po lice of f icers. As the y nea red, he reach ed behin d him self and threw ont o the g roun d several small item s, some o f w hic h w er e l ater i denti fied as .13 g ra ms of co cai ne. The off ic ers a rrest ed H asl ey and at f irst tri ed to use him a s a n informa nt. W hen police foun d him ill -suited for this task, the y decide d to en d the in forma nt relation ship an d f ile charges w ith the district attorne y ’s off ic e. At trial on Octo ber 30 , 200 6, he plead ed n ot guilty . Th at sam e day, a ju ry f oun d him g u i l t y . T h e c o u rti mm e d i a t e l y a d v a n c e d t o t h e p u n i s h me n tp h a s e , w h e r e t h e Sta te submi tted tw o enhancement all eg ati ons: a 1978 c onv ic ti on for burg lar y and a 1989 convictio n f o r d e li veryof a contro lled sub stan ce. Hasley plea ded true to bo th. The se 3 enhanc ements el ev ated Has ley ’s co nv icti on from a st ate- jai l felony

to a s econd -d eg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12.42( a) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. Defense co unsel then mov ed for, and w as g ra nted, a c onti nuanc e unt il the next day , as she had onl y i ss ued subpo enas for defense w it ness es that morni ng
. W hen the tr ial re sumed on Oc tober 31, def en s e c ou ns el a g ai n mo v ed for a c on ti nu an c e be c au s e th r ee o f t he fi v e def ense
w it ness e s c o u l d n o tb e s e r v e d

. O n e , R o n a l d H a c k n e y , a p a r o l e o ffi c e r , w a s o n m e d i cal le a ve a n d co u ld n o tb e r e a c h e d

. As e c o n d , D r. F e rm o , wa s o u to f t o wn u n t il t h e n e xtd a y. A th ird, S all y

Bur man, a dr ug co unsel or , w as not i n her of fice. The tr ial judg e r eces sed to t e le p h o n e B u rm a n
. W h e n co u rt re o p e n e d , B u rm a n wa s in t h e c o u rt ro o m b u t d id n o th a ve3

Hasley’s records an d said th at on ly Dr. Fermo could retriev e the m. Defe nse co unse l said that thes e r ecords w er e ev ide nce of Has ley ’s d ru g t re a tm ent. The tr ial j udg e s aid that Hasley’s history of trea tm ent w a s irrelevant an d de nied the de fense ’s motio n for a cont inua nce. The trial j udge aske d Burm an whethe r she could tes tif y to Hasley’s charact er , and Bur man sa id that she could n ot. The defense decl ine d to cal l any of the thr ee w it ness es then pr esentand re ste d w it hout pr esent ing ev ide nce. The ju ry se ntenc ed H asl ey

to fifteen y ears i n pr is on. The tr ial j udg e the n order ed tha t this sent ence be served conse cutively w ith the rema inde r of a f ift y-ye ar sente nce Hasley had receiv ed in 198 9, for which he w as the n on paro le. Hasley no w app eals to this Cou rt

. II. Ineffecti v e As si sta nce of Couns el Th e s o le i ss ue as ser

ted i n H asl ey ’s att or ney -w ri tten br ief and the t hird i ss ue asserte d in Hasley’s pro-se su p p le m e n t a l b ri e f co n t e n d t h a tHa s le y re c e ive d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of tr ial co unsel

. The pr imar y br ief c lai ms t hat d efense c ounse l’ s s ubpoenai ng of w itnesse s only on the day of the trial and subse quent decision to prese nt no ev iden ce during the p unish me nt ph ase co nstitu ted inef fective assistance of

coun sel. A. S tandard of Re v iew To prov e i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of tri al couns el, an a ppel lan t mus t sat is fy the tw opr ong ed test setforth i n Str ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 668, 687 ( 1984)

. Goods peed
v. State , 187 S.W .3d 390 , 392 (Tex. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 005 ). Fi rst, he m ust sho w coun sel's
re pr esent ati on fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of r eason abl eness
. Seco nd, h e mustsh ow ther e i s a r eason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l' s e rrors, the resul t of the tr ial pr oceed ing s w oul d hav e been di ff er ent. Se e St rick lan d , 466 U.S. at 6 94. “ A reaso nab le prob ab il ity

is a probab ility

suf f icient to und ermin e con f iden ce in the outco me .” Id

. To4

deter mine w hether

this test h as been s ati sfied on appe al is to jud g e by the total it y

of the
re pr esent ati on, n ot by

i sol ated act s o r omis si ons. Jay ne v . St ate , 216 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 851 (Tex

. Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. Generall y , i sol ated failu re s b y co unsel do n ot
cons ti tute er ro r in li g ht of the suffici ency of t he ov er all r epr esent ati on. Id

. In order for a n appel lan t t o ov er come t his C our t's p re sumpti on of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce, “‘any allega t io n o f

inef fectiveness m ust be f irmly foun ded in the record , and the reco rd
mu st af f irmatively dem onst rate the alleged ine f fectiveness.’” Sal

ina s v . St ate , 163 S.W .3d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o ti n g Thom pson v. State , 9 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ). The burden of proof i s on the appel lan t, w ho must est abl is h hi s o r her cl aims by a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Jack son v. State , 9 7 3 S

. W

. 2 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1998)

. B. An alysi s Has ley as ser ts his tr ial att or ney

di d notreason abl y

i nv est ig ate mi ti g ati ng factors for sent enci ng
. There is nothi ng in the re cord to suppo rtthi s a ss erti on, h ow ev er
. W hen t he
r ec ord i s s i l en t r eg ardi ng t he a de q ua c y of an att or ne y ’ s in v es ti g at i on , w e c an no t as s um e that itw as ina deq uate. S e e He r n a n de z v . S ta te , 726 S. W .2d 5 3, 55 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 198 6). Has ley

al so ass erts that itw as unreason abl e for his atto rney to onl y i ss ue subpo enas on th e da y o f t h e tr ial

. The cour

t, thoug h, reces sed unti l the n ext day , w hen thr ee of Has ley ’s fiv e subpo enaed w it ness es w er e pr esent

. Of the o ther tw o, H asl ey

does not p ro v ide thi s C our

t any ev ide nce of how

i ss uin g subpo enas ear li er w oul d hav e c hang ed the o utc ome of

the puni shmentphase. Nor do w e know

w hat D r. F er mo may

hav e s aid

. In Her nandez , the court of

criminal app eals held tha t a failure to issue sub poe nas b eforeT hi s cl ai m i s br ought i nt o qu est i on b y t he t r i al t r anscr i pt , wher e H as l ey m ak es a speci al poi nt of 4 not i ng t hat unt i l t he day of t he t r i al he bel i ev ed h e was f aci ng a sent ence r ange off i f t een t o ni net y - ni ne y ear s. T he a ct ual r ange, wi t h en hancem ent s, was t wo t o t went y y ear s. 5 the day of t he tr ial , ev en if it re sul ted in w it ness es not appear ing , does not co n sti tute ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el w hen ther e is nothi ng i n the appel lat e r ecord det ail ing the potent ial tes ti mony
. Her nandez , 726 S.W

. 2 d a t 5 8

. Similarly, here w e ha v e no basis in
ev ide nce for bel iev ing that defense c ounse l’ s c omplai ned- of behav ior al ter ed th e r esul t t o Has ley ’s detr iment

. T he f act th at th e de fense put on no ev iden ce during the p unish me nt ph ase likewi se doe s n o t, by i tself , show that Hasley w as inef fectively represen ted . Defense coun sel’s dec isi on to not submi t ev ide nce can be a strateg icch oic e r ather than a s ig n of ine ff ect iv eness
. See Ex p arte Ku nkle , 852 S.W .2d 4 99, 5 06 ( Tex . Crim. App. 1993)

. In t h is ca s e , Ha s le y d o e s n o t s h o w u s wh a te vid e n c e sh o u ld h a ve b e e n p re s e n t e d , t h u s we h a ve n o b a s is fo r o ve rc o m in g t h e p re s u m p t io n t h a td e fe n s e co u n s e l b e h a ve d re a s o n a b ly. The is sue is ov er ru led

. In his pro-se supple mental bri ef, Has ley clai ms he w oul d hav e pleaded g uil ty had h i s a t t o r n e y

a d v i s e d h i m h i s p r e v i o u s fe l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s w o u l d e n h a n c e h i s s e n t e n c e
. W e 4 find no aut h o rity , how ev er , for the p ro posi ti on th at t he r ig ht t o eff ect iv e as si sta nce of
coun sel prote cts a def end ant w ho p lead ed n ot guilty while ignoran t of

the con sequen ces. T he aut horities Hasley cites all d eal w ith de fend ant s w ho p lead ed guilty . W e overrule this is sue. III . C onsec uti v e Sent ences In his pro-se supp lem ent al brief , Hasley asserts two issues re ga rd ing his sent enci ng
. In the f irst, he arg ues he w as enti tl ed to noti ce that the s entenc es w oul d r un6

cons ecut iv ely

. As par

t of t his same is sue, he arg ues the tr ial co urt’ s c umulat ion order w as imp rope r. A. S tandard of Re v iew Tex as law

g ener all y

g iv e s tr ial co urts dis creti on ov er w hether

se ntenc es for subs eq uent conv ic ti ons w il l ru n c onsec uti v ely or co ncur re ntl y

w it h s entenc es from pre v i o us conv ic ti ons. See T EX
. C ODE
. C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.08( a) (V er non 200 6)

. An app ell ant has no r ig ht t o a c oncur re nt s entence. C ar ney v. State , 57 3 S. W .2 d 24 , 27 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1978) ; Gar

za Gar za v . St ate , 788 S.W .2d 6 51, 6 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990,
no w ri t)

. The defendant i s n ot en ti tl ed to pr ior notice b e fore a tr ial j udg e orders t hat sent ences be s er

v ed c onsec uti v ely

. Ty

son v. State , 172 S.W .3d 172 , 176 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 05, p e t. re f’d.) ; see als o M il ls lagle v. State , 1 5 0 S

. W

. 3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 -8 5 (T e x. App .–A ustin 2 004 , pet . ref ’d, un time ly f iled). A j udg e’s order

thatse ntenc es ru n c o n se cut iv ely sh oul d g ener all y

sp eci fy (1 ) the
caus e number

of the p ri or

co nv ic ti on, ( 2) the cor re ct name of the cour t in w hic h the pr ior
conv ic ti on oc cur re d, ( 3) the date of the pr ior co nv ic ti on and (4 ) the ter m of y ears a ss ess ed in the p ri or

ca se. Ph il

li ps v. State , 488 S.W .2d 97, 99-100 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1972)

. For an appel lat e c our

t t o find a c u m u lat ion order v oid , an appel lan t mus t s how thatthe Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Jus t ice Institu tiona l Di v ision (TDCJ) is i mp rope rly calculatin g his sent ence. Ex

par te S an M ige l , 973 S.W .2d 310 , 311 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98). B. A ppl ic ati on of Law

to Fac ts In t his ca se, H asl ey

has sh ow n no ev ide nce that the tr ial jud g e abus ed hi s d is creti on by orde ring tha t Hasley’ s se nte nces run conse cutively . Hasley w as no t ent itled to notice bef oreh and that th e t ri a l ju d ge would do so . W hen the trial judge de liv ered Hasley ’s7

sent ence or all y in cour

t, he faile d to menti on th e ter m of y ears a ss ess ed i n the pr ior ca se. The w ri tten jud g ement, how ev er , inc lud es all of the detai ls r ecommended in Phi ll ips . Th is
w as suffici entl y

sp eci fic. See Phi

ll ips , 488 S.W .2d at 100. H asl ey makes no a ll eg ati on th at TDC J h as improper lyc a lcu la ted h is se ntenc e. Thus, ther e i s n o ev ide nce suppo rt ing Has ley ’s arg ument. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. IV. Senten ce Enhanc ement In t he s econd i ss ue r eg ar din g hi s s entenc e, H asl ey arg ues th e re wa s i nsuffici ent proo f of t he e nh an c em en t pa r ag r ap hs

. A t t r i al , ho w ev er , he pl ea de d tr ue to bo th o f t he m, and had an oppo rt uni ty to pr esentev ide nce that they w er e fals e. He did not, and he c it es no ev ide nce or

auth or it y

now for w hy w e s houl d order

a ne w tr ial on t he matt er
. Has ley asserts, as a ma tter of contract law , tha t his 197 8 conviction could not be used to enh ance this sen ten ce be cause it w as a p le a a gr e em ent and in 1978 he did n ot agree to have it used t o e n h a n ce future sent ences
. W e find no aut hor it y to suppo rtthi s a rg ument, and Has ley ci tes none. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. V. C oncl usi on W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.
RO SE V ELA 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 er ed and filed thi s 3 rd day

of Jul y , 200 8.