R et i r ed Four t eent h Cour t of Appeal s Just i ce D on W i t t i g assi gned t o t hi s C our t by t he Chi efJust i ce 1 o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s p u rs u a n t to th e g o v e rn m e n t c o d e . T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 74. 003 ( Ver non 2 0 0 5 ). 

### NUM BER 13-05- 513- 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
A RM A ND O VE LA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d W it ti g 1 

### M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e W it ti g Appel lan t, Ar mando Vel a, w as conv ic ted o f agg ra vat e d robber y by a j ur y . An enhance m e n t w as found to be tr ue and puni shmentw as ass ess ed by the jur y at thi rt y y ears i n pr is on. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.2

In tw o i ss ues, appell ant chal len g es the leg al and fact ual suff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce, and t he deni al of a chal len g e for ca use. I n the remaini ng three i ss ues, he a ll eg es inef fective assistance of

co unse l. Appe llant gav e time ly notice of app eal. W e ad dress his issues in orde r. 1. Standa rd of Rev iew In review ing l egal suf

f iciency, w e look at a ll o f the evidence in the light most fa vo ra b le t o t h e p ro s e c u t io n t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y ra t io n a l t r i e r o f f a c tco u ld h a ve found the e ss enti al el ements of the off ense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Vasq uez v. Sta te , 6 7 S. W .3 d 22 9 , 2 3 6 (T e x. Cri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). Le gal ly su f f ici e n t e vide n ce su p p o rt in g a conv ic ti on ex is ts if the cour t, after re v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav or abl e to the prosec uti on, d eter mines thata rati onal tr ier of fact coul d hav e found the ess enti al ele ments of the offense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Jacks o n v. Virgin ia, 443 U .S. 307, 318- 19 (197 9). Ev ide nce maybe fact ual ly ins uff ic ien t if: (1 ) iti s s o w eak as to be cl ear ly w ro ng and
ma nifestly unju st, or (2) the ad v erse f inding is against the great w eight and prepo nde rance of the av ail abl e ev ide nce. Rob er ts v. State, 220 S. W .3d 5 21, 5 24 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) (ci ti n g Johns on v

. St ate , 2 3 S. W .3 d 1 , 1 1 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 2 0 0 0 )). T h e e vide n ce , t h o u gh legally suf f icient, is factu ally

in suf f icient if it is so w eak th at th e jury 's v erdict see ms clea rly
w ro ng and man if e stly

unj ust , or

i f, cons ide ri ng co nflic ti ng ev ide nce, the jur y 's v erdic t, thoug h l eg all y

su ff ic ien t, is nev erthel ess agai nstthe g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the
ev ide nce. W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

. A factua l suffici ency

r ev iew re q uires the re v iew ing cour t to cons ide r all of t he ev ide nce. Marshall v.3

S ta te , 2 1 0 S.W .3d 618 , 625 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). A clearly w rong and u njust verdict
occurs w here the jury's f inding is man ifestly u n ju s t , s hocks th e con science , or clearly d e m o nst ra tes bi as. Sel ls v. Sta te , 1 2 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 4 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 03)

. The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls i n Rob er ts ex pla ine d that a re v ersal fo r f act ual insuf f iciency cann ot occu r w hen "the g reate r w eight and prep ond eran ce of the evidence act ual ly fav ors c onv ic ti on." Rob er ts , 220 S.W .3d a t 524

. 2. T he Pro of

and Analysis Appel lan t and hi s g i r l fr ien d, c o- defendant M ar ia Gar ci a, en tered a Kohl ’s D epar tment Store. A secur it y

employ ee star

ted sur v eil lan ce w it h a sto re ca mera and c aug ht ap pel lan t on ta pe taking a pair of ten nis shoe s f rom the shoe dep artm ent and placing the m on a shelf in a di ff er ent a is le. G ar ci a the n too k t he s hoes and p u t them in he r purse. The tw o the n
w ent t o the athlet icdepartmentw her e appell ant pic ked out a pair of m ale athlet icsh orts and a bl ack T-s hir t. H e ha n d e d t h e m to G ar ci a w ho to ok the i tems off thei r hang ers a nd put them i nto h er

purse. G ar ci a ex it ed th e s tore first and di d notpay for t he mer chand is e. W hen c aug ht, Gar ci a off er ed to re tur n the proper ty

. She w as esc orted back to t he s tore. The in -s tore s ecur it y

tape w as re cei v ed i nto e v ide nce w it hout obj ect ion

. A s ecur it y

g uard s potte d appel lan t ex it ing the sto re and headi ng tow ard his v ehi cl e. The v ehi cl e w as par ked about ten spac es from the door

. The g uard hel d up his badg e at face l ev el and t old appel lan t t o c om e wit h h im

. Appel lan t pul led out a k nife and headed tow ard the g uard at a q uic k p ace sta ti ng : “ I d o n ’t h a v e to g o bac k w it h y ou. F— y ou.” Appel lan t t hen a d van ce d t ow ard the g uard from a dis tanc e of thi rty feet to thi rty

y ards to
w it hin four or

fiv e feet. The pock et k nife w as open an d poi nted tow ard the g uard, w ho tes ti fied th at he w as sc ar ed. Anothe r sec ur it y g uard ste pped in and app ell ant t hen fled the4

sc ene. Appel lan t w as appr ehended by pol ic e and broug ht ba ck to the s tore w it hin tw enty minut es or

l ess . The sec ur it y

g uard’s tes ti mony

w as cor ro bor ated by

w it ness And re w Si mpson. Garcia test if ied tha t she w as app ellant ’s girlfriend

. T hey had be en to gether for mo re than a y ear

and h a d l iv ed to g ether

. Gar ci a tol d appel lan t s he di d notw ant t o g o i nto t he store an d s te al t ha t da y . Th e c ou pl e ha d s to l en p rop er ty t og et he r

o n ot he r

o c c as i ons. Fr ien d s w o u l d “ o r d e r ” i t e ms t o b e s t o l e n . Th e s h o e s a p p e l l a n t t o o k w e r e t o fi l l s u ch an order

. W hen G ar ci a l eft the st or e s he w as sur pr is ed th at s he had los t app ell ant. She thoug ht ap pel lan t per haps sta y ed in the sto re to see if she had been caug ht. She did not
see appel lan t w alk

tow ard Si lv a, pu ll a k nife, o r swea r a t Si lv a. Gar ci a di d notdeny that thes e thi ng s occ ur re d, but ra ther , sta ted that she did not see them bec ause she w as sc ar ed and ran from t he s cene. Gar ci a tes ti fied that she felt li ke she w as hung out to dr y w hen s he learne d ap pellan t told po lice he did n ot kno w her. Appel lan t arg ues the e v ide nce does not s uppor t a conv ic ti on bec ause appel lan t “n ev er mai ntai ned c ontrol of the proper ty w hil e ex it ing the sto re o r o u ts ide of the s tore” suffici ent t o es tabl is h the intent nece ss ar y for agg ra v ated rob ber

y . In other

w ords, appel lan t cont ends that he l ack ed th e i ntentto main tai n c ontrol of the proper ty at the t ime of the
ass aul t t o s uppor

t a conv ic ti on of agg ra v ated rob ber y . In anyev ent, appel lan t contend s t hat the c onfronta ti on i n the par ki ng l ot w as separate a nd apar t from the t heft in the sto re . Sect ion 29 .01 of

the T exas Pena l Code provides: (1 ) "In t he c ourse of commit ti ng th e ft" means c onduc t t hat o cc urs i n an attemptto commi t, dur ing the commi ss ion , or i n i mmediat e f ligh t after the attemptor

co mmiss ion of theft. (2) "Prope rty " m ean s:5 (A ) tang ibl e or int ang ibl e personal proper ty inc lud ing anythi ng se v er ed from l and; or (B ) a doc ument, inc lud ing money , t hat repr esent s o r embodi es anythi ng of v alu e. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 29 .01 ( Ver non 200 3)

. Sect ion 29.0 2( a) , g ov er nin g “ ro bber y ,” prov ide s, in per

ti nent par

t, that : A person commi ts an offense i f, in the course of commi tti ng thef t as defined in Cha pter

31 o f this co de and w it h i ntent to obtai n or maint ain co ntrol of the proper ty , he: ( 1) i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly , or r eck les sl y

ca uses bodi ly

i nju ry to another ; or

( 2) i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

threatens or

pl aces anot her

i n fear of immine nt bo dil y

i nju ry or deat h...

. Id. § 29. 02 (Verno n 200 3). S ection 2 9.0 3(a), gov erning a gg rav ate d robb ery , provides, in pertin ent p a rt , tha t "[a] person comm its an of fense if he comm its robbe ry as def ined in Sect ion 29 .02 of

this code , and he . . . uses or exhibits a dea dly w eap on. ” Id. § 29 .03. Both par ti es ci te W

hite v. St ate , 671 S.W .2d 4 0, 41 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. W hite hol ds that the p hr ase “i n the co urse of commit ti ng theft” i ncl udes condu ct that occ urs i n an attemptto commi t, dur ing the com m iss io n, or i n i mmediat e fli g ht after the attemptor commi ss ion of t heft. Id. (cit in g T EX
. P EN AL C ODE § 29 .01)

. No compl eted theft i s req uired in order for t he prosc ri bed c onduc t t o c onst it ute t he offense of ro bber y under th e penal code. Id. (cit in g Rob ins on v . St ate , 596 S.W .2d 1 30 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ; Ear l v. State , 514 S.W .2d 273 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74)). A ppe llant f urthe r cites Lig htner v. Sta te , 5 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 8 ( Te x . Cr im. App. 1976)

. In Lig htner

, t he Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls aff ir med a robber y co n viction
w her e the facts sh ow ed th at t he defendant had as saul ted a poli ce off ic er in an attemptto avoid arrest imm edia tely followi ng the the f t of mo ney f rom an una tten ded cash register in6

a s tor e. See i

d. Th e d e fe n d a n t i n t h a t c a s e a rg u e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u ffi c i e nt t o show robber y si nce the str ug g le w it h the pol ic e off ic er oc cur re d after

he h ad c omplet ed th e theft. Id. The Lig htner co urt hel d tha t: Und er Sec ti ons 29.01 and 29. 02, s upr a, t he offense of ro bber y i ncl udes any v iolence in the cou rse of ef fectu ating the the f

t as w ell as any v iolence w hile in imm edia te f lig ht f rom th e scen e of the th ef t. T his new def inition o f robbe ry proscribes th e use of

v iolence not only in the taking of the prop erty, but also in the i mmediat e efforts of the th ief to keep the s tol en proper ty

. . . . Id. The ele ment "int ent to obtai n or maint ain cont ro l o f th e proper ty " in sec ti on 29. 02 "deal s w it h the robber 's st ate o f mind reg ardin g the proper ty " i nv olv ed i n the theft or attempt ed th eft, and not h is st ate o f mind i n the as saul ti v e c omponent of th e o f f e n se of ag g ra v ated ro bber

y . Ex par

te S antel lan a , 606 S.W .2d 331 , 333 (Te x . Crim. App

. 1 9 8 0 ). T here fore, violence or inte ntion al th reats or p lacing a not her in fear of im min entb odily injury
acc omp a n ying a n es cape immedi atel y su bseq uent to an att empted t heft can cons ti tute
ro bber y under se cti on 29. 02. See Ul loa v. St ate , 570 S.W .2d 9 54, 9 57 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978) ; T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29.02, Pract ic e C ommentar y ; see als o Yar

br ough v. State , 656 S.W .2d 200, 201- 02 (Tex

. App.–A ust in 1983, no pet .) ; Bank s v . St ate , 638 S.W .2d 5 32, 535 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 82, pet. ref ’d.). Appel lan t i s fur

ther b u rd e n e d w it h the fact t hat h is co -d efendant had already
com plete d the the f

t and the jury charge include d an instruction on the law of p a rties. Acc ordin g ly , the jur

y coul d conv ic t appel lan t under the ev ide nce if he act ed w it h int ent t o promote or ass is t the commi ss ion of t heft by encou ra g ing , di re cti ng , ai din g , or att empti ng to ai d Garci a. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 7.01 (V er non 200 3)

. Both the v ide o tap e of the7

the f t and liv e test imo ny clearlydem onst rate th is. The l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d t h e i n t e n t t o ma i n t a i n c o n t ro l ov er the proper ty at the ti me the ass aul t t ook pla ce. W hite , 671 S .W .2d a t 40-4 1. T he e v iden ce is thu s suf f icient to prove the aggravated eleme nt that appellan t exhibited or use d a d ead ly
w eapon. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29.03. W e hol d tha t ther e is leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to s how thatappel lan t committed the o ff ense of ag g ra v ated ro bber y . See Li

ghtner , 535 S.W .2d a t 177 -7 8; see also T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 29.03. Ap pel lan t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. 3. Challen ge fo r Cause In his seco nd i ssue, app ellantcomp lains the trial court abu sed its discretio n in deny ing hi s chal len g e for caus e of v eni re man Loui s Gar ci a. Appel lan t cl aims Garci a w as biase d be cause he had a niece w ho was murde red. Her kill er receiv ed o nly six mon ths in jai l and s ome y ears o f probat ion

. Beca use of this ex per ien ce, Garcia sa id h e m ay l ean towards a hea v ier sente nce if app ellantw ere foun d guilty . “[I]f I fin d him g uilty and he’s found g uil ty

by a un ani mous d eci si on, d ependi ng on e v er y thi ng thatI’v e heard, I mayl ean tow ards a mor e he a viers e ntenc e.” F urther , G ar ci a s tated thathe w oul d j udg e the
acc used’ s t ru thfulnes s w it h “ extr eme preju dic e” i f he found out that appel lan t had a pri or conv ic ti on. The v eni re man w as chal len g ed for caus e and the t ri al countdeni ed th e motion. At that poi nt, defense couns el sta ted: “W ell , Y our Hon or , then I w oul d as k t he C our t t o al low
me an extra challen ge so tha t I can—b ecau se I’m g oing to stri ke this m a n , p e re m p tory chal len g e. And I w oul d lik e an extra chall eng e so thatI can re mov e thi s man from the jur y .” The cour t den ied the re q uest

.8

App ellant argues on ap pea l that cou nsel w ould have used a not her pe remp to ry chal len g e on the n ext v e n ire man. The Stat e arg ues, and w e ag re e, t hat t he record does not s uppor

t t his as ser

ti on. In order to show

har m from the er ro neous deni al of a chal len g e for caus e, a defendant mus t demons trate: (1 ) w hen a defendant ex er ci ses a per emptor y chal len g e on a v eni re member w hom the tr ial co urt er ro neous ly fail ed to e xcu se f o r caus e at the def end ant 's req uest ; (2) the de fend antuses all of his st atu torily

allotte d pe remp tory challen ges; and (3) the def end ant w as de nied a request for an ad dition al perem pto ry chal len g e w hic h he cl aims he w oul d us e on another v eni re member w hom the defendant ide nti fies as "obj ect ion abl e" and who a ct ual ly si ts on th e j ur

y . Es cam il

la v. State , 143 S. W .3 d 81 4 , 8 2 1 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Johns on 43 S. W .3d a t 5- 6; W olf e v . St ate , 147 Te x . Crim. 62, 1 78 S. W .2d 274 , 280 -81 (194 4) (op. on reh'g))

. In W olf e , als o ci ted by appel lan t, the cour t s imi lar ly

hel d tha t t he ac cus ed need not sho w why s uch juror

w as obj ect ion abl e to him. W olf e 178 S.W .2d a t 281

. How ev er , t he
same a uthor it y

r eq uires that “a furth er j uror be p re sent ed w h o m he s tates to be obje ctiona ble to him.. .” Id. I n Mo re no , t he c our t not ed: W e also o bs er

v e th ere i s n o s up po rt for t he a s s er

ti on t ha t an o bj ec ti onable juror serv ed on the jur

y . W hil e W olfe does not req uire that a defendant s how g ro unds for a chal len g e for caus e nor sh ow w hy a pa rt ic ula r juror

w as obje ctiona ble, a def end ant mustat least state t hata p articular juror or jurors ar e obj ect ion a b le to h im, after he has ex er ci sed per emptor y ch all eng es on other prosp ect iv e j urors w ho w er e di sq ual ified and w her e hi s c hal len g es for caus e on suc h j urors w er e ov er ru led

. Mo re no v

. St ate , 587 S.W .2d 4 05, 4 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1979) ; see als o Newbury v. Sta te , 135 S.W .3d 22, 30 -31 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 4).9

App ellant correctly

cites H e r

n a n de z as re aff ir ming the co u rt ’s hol din g i n W olf e. Her nandez v. Sta te , 563 S. W .2 d 9 47, 9 48 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978)

. How ev er , t he Her nandez co urt obs er

v ed: “A ppel lan t not if ied the cour t t hat h ad he been g ra nted an addi ti onal ch all eng e, he w o u ld hav e s tr uck v eni re man Gar

y C ar ro ll as bei ng an
u n a c c e p t a b l e j u ro r . T h e s e fa c t s p l a c e a p p e l l a n ts q u a r e l y w i t h i n t h e r u l e l a i d d o w n i n W o l fe
v . St ate .

. . . ” H er e, un li ke in Her nandez , appell ant did not spec ify w hic h v eni re member he found obj ect ion abl e. Beca use appel lan t has not show n har m ar is ing out of the tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng , w e need not a ddr ess w hether

i n fact the r uli ng w as er ro neous . This i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. 4. Ineffect iv e As si sta nce of Couns el By iss u es three, four , and fiv e, ap pel lan t c omplai ns of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of
couns el. An appel lat e cour t re v iew s a tr ial cour

t' s r uli ng on a moti on for mis tr ial and moti on for new tr ial us ing an a buse of dis creti on s tandard of r ev iew

. W e b b v. Sta te , 232 S.W .3d 109, 112 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( ci ti ng We a d v. St ate , 12 9 S. W .3 d 12 6, 1 29 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2004) ). W e v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav or abl e to the tr ial court 's rul ing and uphol d the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng i f it w as w it hin the z one of r eason abl e di sag re ement. Id. We do notsu bst it ute o ur

j udg ment for that

of the tr ial court , but rather w e dec ide w hether

the tr ial co urt' s deci si on w as ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. Id. A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on in den y ing a motio n for new trial only w hen no reasona ble vi ew of the reco rd could su ppo rt the t ri al cour

t' s r uli ng . Cha rles v. State , 1 4 6 S

. W. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 )

. W e must v iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng and pr esume that all reason able f a c t ual f indings tha t could have been mad e against th e losing party w ere10

made ag ain st that los ing par ty

. Id. Th u s, a t ria l co u rtab u s e s i t s d i s c r e ti o n in de n ying a moti on fo r n e w

tr ial onl y

w hen no re asona ble v iew of the record c oul d s uppor t t he tr ial
cour t' s r uli ng . Id. Re view of an i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el cl aim is co nduct ed unde r the
s t a n d ards en uncia ted in Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 46 6 U .S

. 66 8, 6 87
- 88 ( 1984); Her n a n d e z v. St ate, 988 S. W .2d 7 70, 7 70 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. The first re q uirement und er Str

ickl and states : “W hen a conv ic ted d efendant c omplai ns of the i neff ect iv eness of
couns el’ s a ss is tanc e, t he defendant must show that couns el’ s re pr esent ati on fell bel ow an obje ctiv e stan dard of

reason able ness. ” Str

ickl and , 466 U.S. at 687-8 8. The s econd prong set s o ut the g eneral re q uirement t hat t he defendant aff ir mati v ely prov e preju dic e, i. e. , the re is a reason able proba bility that , butfor co unse l’s errors, the resu lt o f t he proce edin g w ould hav e been different. Id. a t 694

. W hen the reco rd is si lent a s to def ense coun sel’s rationa le
or st ra teg y , app ell ant fai ls to ov er come t he presumpt ion thattr ial co uns e l’s d e cisi on w as re asona ble

. Ry

lan der v. Sta te , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2003) ; Thom pson
v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 14 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; see Sal ina s v . St ate , 163 S.W .3d 7 34, 740 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. Rev iew of c ounse l' s re pr esent ati on is hig hly deferent ial , and the rev iew ing co urt ind ulg es a strong pr esumpt ion that couns el' s condu ct fell w it hin a w ide
ra ng e of r eason abl e repr esent ati on. Ma llett v. State , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex . C ri m . App. 2001) ; Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4; Jacks on v . St ate , 97 3 S. W .2 d 95 4, 9 57 (Te x . C r i m. App. 1998) ; see als o Ex p a rte D uffy, 60 7 S. W .2 d 50 7, 5 13 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 19 80 )

. To
ov er come t he presumpt ion of re asona ble professi onal as si sta nce, "any al leg ati on of inef fectiveness m ust b e f ir m ly fo und ed in th e record, and the reco rd mu st af f irmatively11

demonst ra te t he al leg ed i neff ect iv eness ." Thom pson , 9 S. W .2 d a t 81 3 ( c it in g Mc Far lan d
v. State , 928 S.W .2d 482 , 500 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96)). 5. Failure to Call W itness In his third issue, Appe llant con ten ds trial def ense coun sel w as inef fective becau se he fail ed to ca ll a mater ial w it ness . The w it ness , app ell ant’ s s is ter , Emma V aca, tes ti fied att he h ea r i ng o n th e mo ti on for new tr i al

. S he w as a t th e Ko hl ’ s s to r e du r i ng t he t i me app ellant and Garcia w ere arreste d. She testif ied th at she ov erhe ard on e of t he of f icers tell Gar ci a tha t he saw

a br uis e on her

si de and thatall she had to do w as tel l the o ff ic er that app ellant forced her to go there, and thata ppe llant bea t her, and the of f icer w ould “f.. . him up. ” Vaca w as not cont acte d by defense coun sel before trial and w as stat ed to be available fo r t ri a l t e s t im o n y. Unquestion ably, counse l should intervi ew available, be nef icial d ef ense w itnesse s. Hay nes v. State , 790 S.W .2d 824, 827 (Tex . App.–Aus ti n 1990, no pet.) (coun sel di d not interview av ailable , ben ef icial def ens e w itnesse s and did notv isit scene of of fense ). Cou nsel has the duty

to make an independen t inv est ig ati on of the facts and c ircums tanc es of the c ase by se e ki ng out and i nter v iew ing pote nti al w it ness es. Ex parte W elbo rn , 785 S.W .2d 391, 39 5- 96 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ; Ex parte Ybarra , 6 2 9 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1982) ; Duf

fy , 607 S. W .2d a t 517 ; Butler v. Sta te , 71 6 S. W .2 d 48 , 54 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp. 198 6). Once coun sel has inv estigated the facts and dev elop ed a def ensi ve t h e o ry, c o u n s e l i s o b li ga t e d t o p re s e n tsu f f ic ie n ta va il a b le e vid e n c e i n s u p p o rto f t h a td e fe n s ive theor y . See Duf

fy , 607 S.W .2d a t 518 ; Butler , 716 S.W .2d at 54- 55; Shelton v . St ate, 841 S.W .2d 5 26, 5 27 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 92, n o pet .). H o wever, the burden i s o n the12

def end ant to show that pu rported witnesses w ere available an d tha t the ir testimo ny w ould hav e been hel pful to hi m. Ki ng v. State , 649 S.W .2d 42, 44 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1983) ( hol din g tha t failure to ca ll a wi tne ss may suppo rt inef fective assistance of

coun sel claim on ly

if it is show n w it ness w as av ail abl e and defendant w oul d hav e benefit ted from tes ti mony ); see als o But ler , 716 S.W .2d at 55. H er e, t he w it ness w as pur por tedl y av ail abl e butthe q uest ion of ben ef it rema ins. Appel lan t arg ues Vaca ’s tes ti mony w oul d hav e tended to dis prov e the credi bil it y and truth f ulne ss of

the co-d ef end ant Garcia’s testim on y. T he o bvious problem w ith this
arg ument i s t hat appel lan t’ s tr ial counsel w as the on e w ho c all ed Ga rc ia. D efense c ounse l shou ld notbe expecte d to im pea ch his own w itness. Defense coun sel testif ied th at ap pellan t did no t gi ve h im h is sister’s cont act infor mati on. The family

member co uld hav e been impeac hed w it h her l ack of know led g e of appel lan t’ s c ri minal pas t. Ev en had defense c ounse l know n of Vac a, he co uld w ell r eason tha t her test imo ny w ould hurt an d no t help the de fend ant . Defense coun sel specif ically testif ied th at he did not think Vaca’s testim ony w ould help ap pellan t’s case. Furthe r, Vaca had a cr imi nal r ecord and w as on probati on for del iv er y and manufacture of co cai ne and felon y theft

. W e p resum e de fense coun sel provided reaso nab le prof ession al assistan ce and t hat his acti ons mig ht be con si der ed s ound t ri al strateg y . Jacks on , 877 S.W .2d a t 771

. W e may al so imput e impli ci t f act ual f ind ing s that suppor t the tri al ju dg e's ulti mate rul ing on that moti on for new

tr ial w hen s uch impl ic itfactual findi ng s a re both r eason abl e and suppo rt ed i n the r ecord. Cha rles , 146 S.W .3d a t 206

. Here, t he record s uppor ts a findi ng that tes ti mony

by Vac a w oul d nothav e been benefic ial nor w oul d hav e the resul t of the tr ial hav e been different had s he te sti fied. Thus, w e hol d tha t t he tr ial co u rt d id not abuse i ts13

discretion in ov erruling the mo tion for new trial on this ba sis. 6. Fai lure to Cal l Mi ti g ati on W it ness es Appel lan t next c hal len g es his co unsel ’s ef fecti v eness f or

f ail ing to cal l w it ness es to miti g ate p uni shment . Mi ke W anz er prov ide d an aff ida v itw hic h w as admit ted i n the hear ing on th e moti on for new

tr ial

. W anz er ’s aff ida v itst ated that he h a d k n o wn a p pel lan t i n a
w or ki ng re lat ion shi p for tw enty y ears and that appel lan t w as a tr ust ed employ ee w ho w as not prone to v iol ence and not k now n to car ry a k nife. The aff ida v ital so sta ted W anz er w as a vail a b le an d co u ld ha ve te st if ie d atth e tri a l. W a zne r di d no t a p p e a r live atth e he a rin g. A p p e ll a n t ’s n ie c e a p p e a re d a n d t e s t if ie d p o s t -t ri a l th a t s h e s a w a p p e ll a n t e ve ry d a y, t h a th e wa s a go o d m a n wh o wo rk e d h a rd a n d wa s n e ve r vi o le n tt o wa rd h e r o r h e r f a m il y. She w as aw ar e of hi s pr ior conv ic ti ons but not the family v iol ence charg es or ev adi ng ar re st. She i ndi cat ed defense couns el’ s o ff ic e had cont act ed her , butthroug h mi sc ommunic ati on, the y never called her back. Defens e cou nsel te stif ied th at he talked w ith W anzer, but d id notthink W anzer’s propose d tes ti mony

w oul d hav e made a n i mpact on th e puni shment

. Cou nsel further tes ti fied th at he had the impress ion that appel lan t had j ustst arted w or ki ng w it h W anz er and that W anz er

di d notg iv e hi m the impress ion that appel lan t had w or ked for hi m for y ears a s indicat ed in th e af

f idavit. D ef ense co unse l a lso testif ied tha t it se em ed tha t W anzer didn’t
w ant to testif

y . Counse l called W anzer two o t h e r t im es bu t W anzer did notcall back. App ellant point s out tha t def ense co unse l initia lly ca lled W anzer “Bo b W anzer.” D ef ense coun cil then sta ted that“W anzer” w as the nam e h e r e m e mb ered . Th is conf usion w ould li kel y hav e been cl ear ed up w it h a l iv e w it ness . Beca use onl y W anz er ’s aff ida v itw as used, the factfi n d e r ma y a l s o i n fe r fro m a p a rt y ' s fa i l u r e t o c a l l a n a v a i l a b l e , c o mp e t e n t , and14

mater ial w it ness , t hat t he w it ness 's tes ti mony w oul d be unfav or abl e. Al bia r v. State , 739 S.W .2d 360, 363 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ; Tor re s v . St ate , 55 2 S. W .2 d 82 1, 82 5 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 197 7). Defense coun sel f urthe r testif ied th at he had thirty y ears of legal ex perien ce. He
w orked in the Distric t Atto rney’s of f ice for almo st eight y ears, an d nine ty perce nt of his pr act ic e dur ing the las t fifteen y ears h ad been i n c ri minal law

. H e furt her opi ned hi s a cti ons did not hur

t app ell ant. Ac cordin g t o c o u n se l, hi s fai lure to cal l W anz er as a w it ness w as p a rto f a so u n d t ri a l s t ra t e gy s o t h a tt h e p ro s e c u t io n co u ld n o ta s ka se ri e s o f “d id yo u kn o w” ty pe of q uest ion s. D efense c ounse l als o s tated thatappel lan t w oul d notg iv e hi m any names of famil y

members. Appel lan t t old hi m: “ I g ot int o this m y sel f, I’ m g oin g to g et ou t of it my sel f.” The ev ide nce at t he moti on for new tri al hear ing w as cont ra dic tor y . W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of t he moti on by an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Bi agas v. State , 177 S.W .3d 161, 170. (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 2005, pet. re f’d.)

. W e maynot subs ti tute
our j udg ment for that of the tr ial co urt; ra ther , w e rev iew w hether the cour

t’ s deci si on w as ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. C har

les , 1 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 0 8

. T h e fa c tf in d e r i s t h e e xc lu s ive jud g e of the credi bil it y

of w it ness es and t he w eigh t to b e afforded t hei r tes ti mony . See Rod ri guez v. Sta te , 191 S.W .3d 4 28, 4 37 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet re f’d)

. The fa c tfi n d e r

i s fre e to ac c e p ton e v e rs i o n of t h e fac t s , r ej e c ta n o t h e r , o r rej e c ta l l o r

a n y o f a
w it ness 's tes ti mony . See i d. W e p re s u m e t hatall reaso nab le factu al f indings tha t could hav e been made ag ain st the l osi ng par ty , w er e made a g ain st him. Cha rles , 14 6 S. W .3d at 21 1. Viewi ng the evidence in the light mostfavorable to th e ruling, w e hold t he trial court15

did not abuse i ts dis creti on i n ov er ru li ng the moti on for new tri al on this basis

. See S ala zar
v. State, 38 S. W .3d 1 41, 1 48 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Cha rles , 146 S.W .3d a t 208

. 7. Failure to File Discov eryRequest In hi s fin al cont enti on of i neff ect iv eness , appel lan t ass erts that his tr ial co unsel fail ed to req uestunti l the day before tr ial all the ev ide nce that the S tate int ended t o produce under
ru le 404( b) of the Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce. T E X R. E V ID . 404 (b ) (p ro v idi ng for a dmis si on of othe r crime s, w rongs o r act s). T he Sta te did notp rodu ce a printe d v ersion of app ellant ’s
extraneous off ences at the hear ing ; how ev er , the pros ecut or stated at t he hear ing thatsh e inte n d e d t o use evidence of fam ily v iolence . Defense coun sel w as ap pare ntly notaw are of the c onv ic ti on for family v iol ence and as ked for a cont inu ance. The c onti nuanc e w as deni ed, a nd th e tr ial co urt order ed th e St ate to tur n ov er copi es of the i nformati on and pen pack ets

. Appel lan t c oncl udes thathis tr ial att or ney w as thus unprepar ed for the p uni shment phase of the t ri al. I n repl y , t he St ate repl ies thati t has an o pen f ile poli cy , and the in fo rm a ti o n so u ght w a s a vail a b le to th e de fe n d a n t t h ro u gh t h e St a te ’s f ile s a n d th ro u gh publ icr ecords. It is tr ue as appel lan t arg ues, that appel lan t’ s abi li ty to re v iew

the Stat e’s fil e does not eq uate to t he St ate’ s i ndi cat ion thati t w il l int ro duce suc h ev ide nce in it s cas e- in- chi ef. See Buch anan v

. St ate , 911 S.W .2d 11, 15 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95). Still, a s a ppe llant also adm its, the mere failure to f ile an ap prop riate pret ria l m o t io n shall not b e cate gorically deemed i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. Ma dden v . St ate , 9 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (T e x. App .–W aco 1 995 , pet . ref ’d). Defense coun sel testif ied atthe m otion for new trial hearing that he d id f ile a specif ic16

dis cov er y req uestf or

the sur v eil lan ce tapes

. The tape of the s tore’s i nter ior w as produce d
w it hout the n eces si ty

of a hear ing

. He was a lso p ro vi ded ac ces s t o the Sta te’ s fil e, inc lud ing appel lan t’ s h is tor y and extraneous offenses . Gi v en th e ti me constrain ts, he saw
no n eed for a forma l motio n on the rule 40 4 ma tters. At the contin uan ce he aring, def ense c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a tt h e S t a t e h a d a lr e a d y t o ld h im a b o u ta p p e ll a n t ’s fe lo n y co n vic t io n s , f ive burg lar ies , and one p o ss e ss ion of a co ntroll ed s ubst ance plu s “ a w hol e l ot of misd em ean ors.” The one thing counse l seem ed to be un aware of wa s a f a mily v iolence
conv ic ti on per

tai nin g to one of appel lan t’ s for mer g ir lfri ends. T he St ate indicate d the y did not inten d to use any of the prior convi ctions u nde r r ule 404( b)

. The prosec utor and defense c ounse l had prev iou sl y co nferr ed and the p ro sec utor sta ted t hat s he had furni shed all the ru le 404( b) i nformati on. Defense co unsel ag re ed,
ex ceptfor t he family v iol ence matter

. The r ecord i ndi cat es that the s eeming di sag re ement in f ront of

the jud ge wa s an ap pare nt m isund erstan ding thatthe f am ily v iolence w ould somehow

be u sed under

404( b)

. The prosec utor sta ted she had no int ent to use that matter under r ule 404( b)

. Rat her , t he St ate int ended t o us e thi s c onv ic ti on i n the puni shment phase

. Defense co unse l a lso state d he w as atte mp ting to try the case as soon as possible because a ppel lan t w as in jai l. F urther , i t i s c lea r from the re cord tha t defense co unsel thoug ht he had been f ur nis hed all the infor mati on f ro m the State’ s fil e and had no re ason to s uspec t t hat the State w as hidi ng anyinformati on. Thus, w hen he dis cov er ed he had not bee n told of the fam ily

v iolence conviction, he im me diate ly moved for a cont inua nce. He
w as then furni shed thi s remai nin g bit of informati on in w ri ti ng , ev en th oug h i t w as not g oin g to be used und er rule 404 (b).17

The St ate a rg ues that appel lan t has not show n tha t hav ing so me i nformati on ear li er throug h some formal procedu re w oul d probabl y hav e caus ed a different outc om e to the
case. W e agree. T he reco rd supp orts an im plied f inding by the trial j udge th at de fense couns el had i n f a ct alr eady di sc ov er ed th e r ule 404( b) ev ide nce w it hout the n eces si ty of fili ng a for mal moti on. The onl y ev ide nce of w hic h he w as unaw ar e did not come under t he pur v iew of ru le 404( b)

. See T E X R. E V ID
. 404( b)

. Thus, e ven a f o rm a l moti on w oul d not hav e nec ess ar il y

hav e prov ide d the i nformati on abou t t he famil y v iol ence conv ic ti on. The r ecord s uppor

ts an i mpli ed findi ng that def ense couns el used re asona ble efforts to prepar e for the p uni shmentphas e. Appel lan t fail ed to sh oul der hi s b urden t o s how

both
a defici ent effort on the par t of c ounse l and a re asona ble probabi li ty of a d if f e re n t res ult

. Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 4. W e ac cordin gly h o ld that the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by

ov er ru li ng the moti on for new tr ial on t his ba sis

. W e ov er ru le is sues three, four, and fiv e. 8. Con cl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
DO N W ITTIG, 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 t he 30t h day

of Ma y , 200 8.