Opinion filed Sep tember 1 0, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 01 21 -CR

____ ____ __ KEITH B ERN AR

D V AN DER BILT, Ap pellant V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 104th Distric t Court

Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16232B

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted K eith Be rnar d Vande rbilt of the first deg ree felony offe nse of se x ual assault and the se cond deg ree felony offe nse of attempted sexual assault. The trial cour t found an enhanc ement alleg ation char g ing a ppellant as a

repe at o ff

en d er on eac h char g e to be true and assessed his punishment for the sexual assault conviction at confine ment for life and for the attempted sexual assault at twenty y ear s confine ment. The trial court orde red that the sentenc es run
concur rently . I n his sole appellate issue, appellant c ontends that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ouns e l a t tr ia l be c a

us e his c ouns e l de nie d him the ri g ht to tes tif y on his ow n be ha lf

. We a ff ir m.Str ic kl and v . W ashi ngton , 466 U .S. 668 (1984)

. 1 2 A cr iminal defenda

nt has a c onstitut ional rig ht to testify on his own behalf. Sm ith v . S tat e , 2 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d

3 3 3 , 3 3 8 n . 9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Rock v. Arkansas , 483 U.S. 44, 51-52 (1 98 7) ). Th is r ig ht c a n b e kn ow ing ly and vo lun tarily wa ive d o nly by the de fe nd a nt, no t by

his counsel. Id. (c i t i n g Emery v. Johnson , 139 F. 3 d 1 91, 198 (5th Cir. 1997)). The trial court ha s no duty to inform a def

endant r epre sented by

counsel of his rig ht to testify

. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 169 S.W .3 d 223, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, “ defe nse counse l shoulders the primar y
re sp on sib ili ty

to i nf or m th e de fe nd a nt o f h is r ig ht t o testi fy , in cludin g the fa c t th a t th e ult imate decision belo n gs to the defe ndant.” Id. Be cause imparting that information is defe nse counse l’s responsibil i t y , a cl aim by a def endant that he was de nied his rig ht to testify is properly

addre ssed under the Strickland fra

mework f or ineff ective- assistance -of- counsel c laims. Sm ith , 286 S.W .3d 1

a t 34 1- 42 ; Johnson , 169 S.W .3d at 235, 239. To establish ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel, appe llant mu st show that his counsel’s
re pr e se ntatio n f

e ll b e low the sta

nd a rd of pr e va ili ng pr of

e ssi on a l no rm s a nd that the re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity tha t, b ut f or c ouns e l’ s d e fi c ie nc y , th e re su lt o f t he trial wou ld have be e n d if fe re nt. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 0, 69 4; Sa lin as v . S tat e , 163 S.W .3d 734, 7 4 0 (T ex . Crim. App. 2005); Ma lle tt v . S

tat e , 65 S.W .3d 59, 62-63 (Te x . Crim. App. 2001). Review of counsel’s r epre sentation is highly defe rential, a

nd the reviewing court indulg es a strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fell wit hin a wide r ang e of r easona ble re prese ntation. Ma lle tt , 65 S.W .3d at 63. A re viewing court will r are ly be in a position on direc t a ppeal to fairly

evaluate the mer its of an ineff ective- assistance claim. Salinas , 1 63 S.W. 3d a t 74 0; Tho mp so n v . S

tat e , 9 S

. W

. 3 d 808, 813-14 (Te x . Crim. App. 19 99 ). I n the ma

jor ity of c a se s, the re c or d o n d ir e c t a pp e a l is un de ve lop e d a

nd c a nn ot a de qu a te ly ref lect the motives behind trial c ounsel’s ac tions. Ma lle tt , 65 S.W .3d at 6 3

. To overc ome the pr e su mpt ion

of re a so na ble pr of e ssi on a l a ssi sta

nc e , a ny a lle g a tio n o f ine ff

e c tiv e ne ss mus t be fi rm ly fo un de d in

the re c or d, a nd

the reco rd

mus t a ff ir ma tiv e ly de mon str a te the a lle g e d in e ff e c tiv e ne ss. Salinas , 1 63 S.W. 3d

a t 74 0; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. I n this cause, the r ecor d is silent as to whether a ppellant’s trial c ounsel informed a ppellant tha t he h a d t h e r i g h t t o t e s t i f y a n d t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n a s t o w h e t h e r t o t e s t i f y b e l o n g e d to
a pp e lla nt. Af te r t he punis hme nt p ha se e vid e nc e wa s c on c lud ed, the tri a l c ourt a sk e d a pp e lla nt i f there was a

ny thing that he wanted to sa

y befor e sentence was pronounc ed. Appe llant addre ssed the3

trial court. In his brief, a ppellant relies on the following statements that he made to the trial court
a bo ut h is tri a l c ouns e l:

He tol d me Ic ou ldn ’t

speak in c ourt . I

wr ote him

a no te and sli d it to h im. He loo ke d, a nd

the of fi c e r t hat br ou g ht m e to t

he cou rt lo ok e d.

. . . H e take s me in the re a nd te lls me no t – do n’ t e ve n w a nt m e to s a y no thi ng . Y ou

kn ow , h e jus t w a nts me to sta nd he re qu ie t ju st l ike Ido ne the wh ole tr ia l. I ne ve r s a id I

did n’ t w a nt t o testify . That wa s him. He didn’t want me to open my mouth at all to hear no side of what I had to say . Ijust don’t see how that’s f air. These statements do not support appellant’s c ontent i on that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel. F irst, the statements do not indicate that a ppellant’s counse l failed to advise him of hi s rig ht to testify , that appellant ever told his trial counsel that he wanted to testify , or that his trial counsel
so me ho w p re ve nte d h im f ro m te sti fy

ing . Se c on d, the state me nts we re no t e vid e nc e . Ap pe lla nt d id not make the state ments under oath. He made them while addr essing t h e t ri al cour t at the punishment hearing

. Ap pe lla nt d id n ot ra ise his ine ff

e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e -o f- c ouns e l cla im in a mo tio n f or ne w tri a l; there fore , he did not prese nt any evidenc e to the tr i al co u rt i n s u pport of his claim. B eca use the
rec ord conta ins no evidence to suppor t a ppellant’s claim, we cannot conclude that appellant’ s trial counsel’s pe rfor

mance was de ficient. See Salinas , 1 63 S.W. 3d a t 741 (“ [A]pp e lla nt’ s a sse rt ion s in his b ri ef o n ap peal, in the a bsence of any

thing in the tria l rec ord, ar e insuffic ient to show that he
asser ted his ri gh t t o testify

and his attorney

failed to prote ct it.”). Appe llant has not met the standards se t out in Strickland . There fore , we ove rrule a ppellant’s sole issue. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

T E R RY M c C A LL

J USTI CE September 10, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , a n d

S t r a n g e , J.