### NUM BER 13-07- 0026 4-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 DR IA N RIOS , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 94 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of 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 V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A p p e ll a n t , A d ri a n Ri o s , wa s co n vic t e d o n two co u n t s o f a rs o n ca u s in g b o d il y in ju ry, a first- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28.02( a) (2 )( A) , ( d) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 200 7). Th e trial court sen ten ced Rios, a h abi t u a l fe lony of fend er, to forty y ears’ conf inem enton ea ch cou nt, wit h t he se nte nces to run concu rrently. Rios now app eals, cont endi ng that: (1 ) the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t to est abl is h that the of f e n se occur re d
w it hin the li mits of an i ncor porated ci ty or tow n; ( 2) the ev ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o est abl is h tha t R ios kn ew thatthe off ense occ ur re d w it hin the li mits of an inc or porated ci ty
or t ow n; a nd ( 3) h e r ec ei v ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el

. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND On J uly 15, 2006, Cr

y sta l Sal ina s and J ess ic a Sanc hezv is it ed a nig htc lub i n C or pus Chr is ti , Tex as, w here theybecame inv olv ed in an al tercat ion w it h R osann a Tor re s J uarez and Ter ry

Gar z a. Afterw ard, Sali nas and Sanchezw ent to their resi dence at 2107 S hir ley Stree t in Co rp us Christi, w here they li v ed wi th An dres Ybane z , Ybanez’s fo ur siblings, Y banez ’s mother , and Sal ina s’ s c hil dren. Juarezand Gar z a retur ned t o G a rz a’s hous e. A tt h e t im e , Ju a re z wa s Ri o s ’s gi rl f ri e n d a n d G a rza wa s t h e gi rl f ri e n d o f E rn e s t o G o n za le z. Gon z alez had previouslyresided wi th th e Ybane z es at an oth er add ress. The fol l ow i ng e v en i ng , J ua r ezb or row ed h er mo th er ’ s t r uc ka nd d rov e to a “ g am e
ro o m ” i n O d e m , T e xa s wit h Ri o s , G o n z a l e z, G a rza , A n ge l M o re n o a n d S a m Ro d ri gu e z. W hil e the re , Moreno ov er heard Juarez , Ri os, Gonz ale zand Gar z a disc uss ing the fig ht t hat
occ ur re d the nig ht before. Mo re no als o heard Ri os and Gonz ale z dis cus s thei r int ent to “k ic k s ome g uy ’s as s.” The g ro up retur ned t o Gar z a’s resi dence a t a ro u n d m idn ig ht, at
w hic h poi nt J uarez , G arz a, an d M oreno ent ered th e hous e w hil e R ios , Go n zale z , and Rodriguez rema ined out side the hou se talking. At some point, Juarez too k tw o Xanax pill s. She subse quently w entoutsid e an d overheard Rios, Gonzalez and Ro d ri gue z , express thei r desi re to “c ocktai l” the Y banezhous e. Acc ordin g t o Moreno, Ri os came i nto t he ho us e an d as k ed to bor row k ey s t o J ua r ez ’ s mo th er ’ s t r uc kt o “ ta k e c are of s om e busi ness .” J uarezand Mo re no th en s aw Rio s, Gonz ale z , R odr ig uez , and anot her man, “G o rd o , ” ge tin t o t h e t ru c ka n d d ri ve a wa y. Mean w hile, Ybane z , Ybane z ’s siste r Dina Lim on, S anch ez, an d Chelsea Rudisell
w er e retur nin g to the Shi rl ey Street resi dence i n Y banez ’s w hit e C hev ro letM ali bu. Y banez
w as dr iv ing , R udi sel l w as in the front pass eng er se at, and Li mon and Sanc hezw ere i n the
re ar pas seng er

se ats

. As Y banezpul led i nto t he dr iv ew ay of the Shi rl ey Street resi dence , Rud is ell obs er

v ed s ev eral me n i n the bed of a pi ck up tr uck approx imat ely

four house s away . According to Rudisell, th e me n w ere ho lding some thing o n f ire in their han ds. Rudisell alerte d the othe r passen gers, w ho a ll l ooke d up . Sanch ez saw three bald m en in3

musc le shi rt s h old ing “ flames.” The t ru ck st arted mov ing sl ow ly tow ard t h e M a lib u , at
w hich po int Lim on n oticed thatone of the me n in the t ruck b ed had “EME” tatt ooe d on his arm; she recognized this tatt oo a s Gonzalez’ s. Four of the “ flames,” w hic h w ere in factMol otov cocktai ls , w ere then throw n in th e dir ect i o n o f t h e M a l i b u
. O n e c a me i n t h ro u g h t h e p a s s e n g e r w i n d o w a n d l a n d ed on Ybane z ’s lap, settin g bo th Ybane za nd the ca r ab laze. At leastone othe r M oloto vcocktail str uck the Ma li b u. Al thoug h Sanc hez , R udi sel l and Li mon w ere abl e to ev acuat e the infer no, Y banez ’s sa fetybel t w oul d notunbuc kl e. Sal ina s a nd her

ch il dr en w ere s lee pin g i nsi de th e Shi rl ey Street house w hen Sa li nas heard a n ois e foll ow ed by sc re ams and saw a flas h of li g ht t hroug h the w ind ow
. Sal ina s opened the front d oor

to see Y banez ’s Mal ibu engul fed in flames, w it h Yban ezstil l ins ide

. Ev entual ly , R udi sel l w as abl e to unbuc kl e Y banez ’s safety bel t, at w hic h poi nt ot hers p ull ed him out of

the car an d sprayed him w ith w ate r. Ma ri o Ol iv arez , an off ic er w it h the C or pus Chr is ti Pol ic e D epar tment (“ CC PD ”) , w as dis patc hed t o Shi rl ey Street w here he saw the Ma li bu s ti ll smol der ing

. He obser v ed w hat appeared to be h uman ski n nex t to the v ehi cl e. Al so, shard s of brow n g las s w ere found in the M ali bu and strew n on the d ri v ew ay and stree t. Ge o rge Al v arez , ano ther C CP D off ic er , al so re spond ed to the sc ene. Officer Al v arezi nter

v iew e d Limon, w ho c oul d not ide nti fy or

des cr ibe any

su spec ts for h im

. H o wev er , O ff ic er Al v arezdi d recei v e a desc ri pti on of the tr uck from w hic h the i ncend iar y proje cti les w ere throw n. After Rud is ell and Y banezw ere tak en to the hospi tal , CC PD D etec ti v e Gua dal upe Rodriguez arriv ed a t the scene , w here she inte rv ie w ed Sa nche zand Limo n, w ho were
re luc tant to prov ide a n y in f o rm ati on. Det ect iv e R odr ig uezthen v is it ed R udi sel l in the hospi tal , butR udi sel l w as u n d er heavy se dati on and coul d notprov ide any i nformati on. De tective Rodriguezreturne d to Sh irley Street , w here Sanch ez and Limo n w ere m ore forthco min g, describing w hom they thought was inv olved in the at tack. Rud is ell su ff er ed bur ns on her face, neck , ar m and hand, and w as hospi tal iz ed forT h e in d i c t m e n t a ls o in c lu d e d a s e c o n d c o u n t, w h ic h w a s id e n tic a l to th e f ir s t c o u n t, e x c e p t t h a t it 1 re fe re n c e d th e b o d i l y i n ju ry s u ff e re d b y R u d i s e l l ra th e r th a n Y b a n e z. 4 four to f iv e days. Ybane z suf fered sev ere bu rns on ne arly f if ty perce nt of

his body, and lost la rge p o rt ion s o f ski n from hi s s tomach , c hest , ar ms, leg s a nd face. H e w as lat er transfer re d to Brooks Ar myM edi cal C enter i n San Antoni o. Juarezdi d notv olu nteer any i nformati on to the pol ic e at firs t, but s he w as cont act ed by the pol ic e s ev eral w eeks after the in ci dent. Sh e s tated thatsh e w as tak ing three prescription med ication s for bipola r disorder and thatshe ha d be en hospita liz ed p rev iously beca use of the disorde r. Xanax w as not one of those prescribed med icines. Juare ztold pol ic e tha t R ios , G onz ale z , R odr ig uez , and Gordo had borrow ed her mother ’s tr uck on t he nig ht i n q uest ion

. Juareztol d pol ic e tha t w hen t he men retur ned, she ask ed R ios w hat h ad happen e d , b u tR i o s w o u l d n o ta n s w e r
. J u a r e zt e s t i fi e d a tt r i a l t h a tw h e n t h e y re t u rn ed, they w er e ac ti ng “ w ound up ” and t old her thatthey

had “c ocktai led ” Y banez ’s ca r. On S eptember

28, 2006, a N ueces C ounty g ra nd jur

y ind ic ted Ri os, Gonz ale z , and Gar z a on tw o counts of arson caus ing bodi ly i nju ry
. See i

d. C ount one of the ind ic tment state d in relevant part th at th e de fend ant s:
w it h i ntentto damag e and dest ro y a V EH IC LE [ did ] i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

STAR T A F IR E to sa id VEH IC LE by THR OW IN G A CO NTAIN ER OF AC CE LLERAN T [si c] THEN ABLAZE AT SAI D VEH IC LE, know ing i t w as w ithin the limits of an incorporat ed city and town, nam e ly, CO RPUS CH RI STI, Tex as, and that bodi ly inju ry w as suffered by

AN DR ES Y BAN EZ by reason of the c ommis si on of sai d offense. [ ] 1 On Febr uar

y 27, 2007, all three defendants w ere re -i ndi cte d. The amended in d ict m ent matche d the or ig ina l but a ls o i ncl uded al leg ati ons that Ri os had tw o pr ior felony co nv ic ti ons and t hat G onz alez h a d o n e pr ior felony co nv ic ti on. See i

d. § 12 .42( c) (1 ), ( d) ( Ver non Supp. 2007)

. After Gar z a’s moti on to se v er

w as g ra nted, the cas e proceed ed to tr ial
a ga in s tRi o s a n d G o n za le z. A t trial, To mm y

Pleasa nt, a K-9 trainer w ith the State Fire Marshal’s Of f ice (“SFMO”) , testif ied tha t he too k a d og train ed to f ind ignitable liq uids to inspectY ban ez’s Malibu. Beca use the d og a lerted t o the d riv er’s side f loorbo ard, Ple asan t too k a sam pleJ u a r e z c l a i m e d t h a t s h e h a d p e r m i s s i o n f r o m h e r m o t h e r t o b o r r o w t h e t r u c k. 2 5 of the c ar peti ng from t hat a re a. Ji m Sw ind all , SF MO l aborator y manag er , t est ified thathe
ana lyz ed th e sam ple and d ete cted t he prese nce o f ig nitab le liq uids. SFMO Capta in Mark W ag ner testi fied that he inv est ig ated the scen e of the fire and found remnan ts of a M olo tov
coc kta il

. Cap tai n W ag ner sta ted that the damag e at the sc ene w as ty pica l o f a Mo lo tov cockta il attack. Sy lv ia Torres, Ju ar ez ’s mother , t est ified thatJuare zhad tak en her g re en C hev ro let Si lv erado four-d oor

pick up truc k w it hout her per mis si on on Jul y

16, 2006. Tor re s s tated

2 that she cal led Ju ar ezmul ti ple ti mes to f ind out w here the tr uck w as, ev entual ly

g oin g to Garza’s house in sea rch of the truck. T orres testif ied tha t, as she arriv ed a t Garza’s hou se at around 1: 00 a. m. on Jul y 17, 2 0 0 6 , the S il v erado w as jus t pul li ng up t o the hous e as
w ell

. Torres obser

v ed Ri os, Gonz ale z , Rodr ig uez , and a fourth man she did not recog niz e,
ex itthe tr uck

. At t hat p oin t, Torres g ot i nto t he tr uck and detec ted a n odor

of g asol ine

. Al so tes ti fyi ng for t he St ate a t t ri al w as Kennet h Aus ti n, an i nmate at the N ueces Cou nty j ail w ho bec ame ac q uai nted w it h fell ow i nmate R ios

. Aust in tes ti fied th at he
o ve rh e a rd a n a rg u m e n tb e twe e n Ri o s a n d a n o t h e r i n m a t e , d u ri n g wh ic h Ri o s sa id : “H e y, don ’t mess wi th m e, I’m the f ire bom ber. I’m fam ous
. ” A ustin lat er hea rd Rios tell his cel lmat e: “W e caug ht him at . . . Cros sto w n Greenw ood. W e j ustmeant to s care hi m . . . I didn’t kn ow his w indo w w as do w n.” Austin a lso testif ied th at, so me time later, he hea rd Rios again say: “Y eah , I’m th e f ire bom ber. T hey g ot m e he re. I’m fam ous. ” Neithe r Ri os no r Gonzalezcalled an y w itnesse s to testif

y at trial. On M ar ch 28, 2 007, the j ur y found R ios and Gonz ale zg uil ty on bot h c ounts

. Ri os ple aded “ tr ue” to the all eg ati ons cont ain ed in the enhanc ement parag ra ph of the sec ond ind ic tment. Su bseq uentl y , the tri al cour t sentenc ed him to forty y ears’ co nfinement in the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of Cri minal Justi ce on each count, w it h the sent ence s to run con currently. R ios did not f ile a mo tion for new trial, but tim ely f iled hisO n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e tri a l c o u rt s i g n e d a c e rti fic a ti o n o f R i o s ’ s ri g h t t o a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 3 P. 2 5 .2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , ( d ) . G o n z a le z is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l.

W e ad dr ess Ri os’ s i ssues o ut of or der i n t he i nt er est of conv eni ence. 4 6 noti ce of appeal on A pr il 17, 2007. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. 3 II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Ev id ent iary

Su ff icien cy By hi s s econd i ssue, R ios co ntends thatthere w as ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to s how 4 tha t he kne w

thatthe of

fense w as com mitt ed wi thin th e citylimits of Corpus Christi. 1. St and ard o f Rev iew W hen rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of ev ide nce, w e v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht
m o s tfa 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 r a t io n a l t ri e r o f f a c tc o u ld h a ve foun d t h e e ss e n ti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. See Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8

- 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9) ; W a ts o n v. Sta te , 2 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 -1 7 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2006)

. The tr ier of fact i s t he s ole j udg e of the facts, the credi bil it y o f the
w it ness es, and the w eig ht g iv en to tes ti mony
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.04 (V er non 200 5) ; Jacks on , 443 U.S. at 31 8- 39; Beck hamv. Sta te , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2000, pet. ref’d)

. W e do not reev alu ate t he w eig ht an d c re dib il ity of the ev ide nce, w hether circums tanti al or

direct , nor do w e subst it ute o ur ow n j udg ment for that of t he tr ier

of fact. Beck

ham , 29 S.W .3d at 151. Ins tead, w e consi der w hether the jur y reache d a rati onal dec is ion

. Id. In a factual su ff ic ien cy

rev iew , w e v iew

al l the e v ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, fav or ing nei ther par ty

. W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 ; Dr ichas v. State , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 9 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 5). W e the n ask: (1) w het her the ev iden ce sup portin g the conviction is so
w eak that the fact -fin der ’s dete rmi nati on i s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly u nju st; or ( 2)
w hether co nflicti ng ev ide nce so g re atl y outw eig hs the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the conv ic ti on t h a tt h e fa c t
- fi n d e r ' s d e t e r mi n a t i o n i s m a n i fe s t l y u n j u s t

. W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 414 -1 5, 417; Johns on v

. St ate , 23 S.W .3d 1 , 11 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) . T o r e v erse under the
sec ond g ro und, w e mustdete rmi ne, w it h s ome obj ect iv e basis in the record, t hat t he g re at7

w eig ht and preponderance of all the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the v erdict. W ats on , 204 S. W .3d at 41 7. A factua l suffici ency rev iew req uires the revie wing co u rtto cons ide r all of the
ev ide nce. Ma rs hal

l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 618 , 625 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). 2. A nal ysis Sect ion 28 .02 of

the T exas Pena l Code provides in relevant part as follows: A person commi ts an offense i f the person sta rt s a fire, reg ardle ss of w hether the fire co nti nues after ig nit ion , or ca uses an e xplosion w it h i ntent to de stroy

or damag e:

. . . (2 ) any bui ldi ng , hab it ati on, o r v ehi cl e: (A ) kn ow ing thati t i s w it hin the li mits of an inc or porated ci ty or tow n .
. . . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 28.02. Ri os does not chal len g e the suf fici ency of the e v ide nce show ing thathe s tar ted a fire w it h i n t e n t t o c a u s e d a ma g e t o a v e h i c l e
. H e me r e l y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e w as no
ev ide nce show ing that he k new the v ehi cl e w as “w it hin the li mits of an i ncor porated ci ty or tow n.” W e di sag re e. W hen k now led g e of the defendant mus t be est abl ish e d , itca n be show n by ind ependentfacts and ci rc umstan ces ind ic ati v e of s uch know led g e. Mo uton v. State , 627 S.W .2d 765, 768 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 198 1, no pet. ). I n Mo uton , the cour t found inde pen den t facts an d circumst ance s suf f icient to show tha t def end antknew the v ehicle he s et fire to w as loc ated w it hin an inc or porated ci ty

. Id. Sp eci fical ly , t he c our t not ed th at: [t] he St ate estab li shed thatthe appel lan t had liv ed in the incor porated area of Hous ton w here the offense occ ur re d w hen he w as b e twe e n the ag es of sev en and tw elv e; t hat h is g ir lfri end’ s b ro ther l iv ed i n the nei g hbor hood; that the a ppel lan t’ s b ro ther , t he c omplai nant, l iv ed in the nei g hbor hood[; ] and that the app ellanthimse lf

had liv ed a t his broth er’s house w here the of fense occ ur re d for a few

months i n 1978. Id. ; see Bel

la v. State , 792 S.W .2d 542, 545 (Tex . App.–El Paso 1990 , no pet.) ( findi ng that a j ur y co uld hav e rati onal ly

co ncl uded that the d efendant k new the bui ldi ng sh e s et fire to
wa s l o ca te d w it h in an in co rp o ra te d cit y, ba se d pa rt ly on “th e co m m o n kn o wled ge8

chara cteristics of

the de scribed loca tion”). Here, i ndependen t fact s and circums tanc es pro v ide d a ra ti onal basis for the jur y to hav e c oncl uded t hat R ios kn ew the v ehi cl e he setfire to w as loc ated in Cor pus Chr is ti

. For
ex ample, the ev ide nce est abl is hed that Ri os w as li v ing in Cor pus Chr is ti at the t ime of the
ev ents i n q u e st ion. S anche zi denti fied th e 2107 Shi rl ey Street resi dence on a n aer ial photog rap h o f

t h e area th at w as int ro duced as the Stat e’s ex hib itnumber one; the photog ra ph s how ed th at t he house w as loc ated in a dens e resi denti al nei g hbor hood w it h utility lines, sw imm ing poo ls, and street lights clearly v isible. Juarez testif ied th at she , Rios, Gonz ale z , and Gar

z a drov e bac k “ from Odem to C or pus” on the ni g ht i n q uest ion

. She further tes ti fied that, after Ri os and Gonz ale zl eft w it h the ke y s t o her mother ’s tr uck , t hey
re tur ned 45 minut es lat er
. Aust in tes ti fied th at he ov er heard R ios sa y : “W e caug ht him at

. . . Cross tow n Greenw ood.” This consti tuted so me ev ide nce that Ri os w as famili ar w it h t h e ci t y. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p ro sec uti on, see W ats on , 204 S

. W

. 3 d a t 4 1 4

- 1 7 , w e fi n d t h a t a ra t i o n a l t r i e r o f fa c t c o u l d h a v e fo u n d b e y ond a
re asona ble doubtthatR ios k n e w th e c ri me took pl ace w it hin the ci ty

l imi ts of Cor pus Ch ris ti

. See Mo uton , 6 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t7 6 8

. A c c o rd i n g l y , t h e r e w a s l e g a l l y s u ffici ent
e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt t h e v e rd i c t

. Se e Be ck ham , 29 S. W .3d at 151 . Moreover, the jury ’s conclu sio n wa s n ot c lea rl y w ro ng , mani festl y

unj ust , or

ag ain st the g re at w eig ht an d pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414- 15, 417. Ri os’ s s econd is sue is ov er ru led

. B. “Incorporate d City or Tow n” By hi s first is sue, R ios co ntends thatthere w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent
ev ide nce adduc ed attr ial to show thatC or pus Chr is ti i s a n “ inc or por ated ci ty or tow n.” Ri os is correctthat there w as no ev ide nce adduc ed at tri al reg ardin g the inc or porati on of Corpus Christi. How ever, a court ma y t a k e j u d ic ia l n otice th at a city or town i s inc or porated. See G onzale z v. Sta te , 723 S.W .2d 7 46, 7 50- 51 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ; see9

als o T EX
. L OC
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 9.0 08( b) ( Ver non 200 8) ( “R ecorded c har ters o r
am en dm en ts are pu bl i c ac ts

. C ou rts s ha l l ta k e j ud i c i al no ti c e of th em , an d no proo f is required of

their provisi ons. ”). In Gonz ale z , t he c our

t of c ri minal appeal s c onsi dered w hether a c onv ic ti on c oul d be based upon an i ndi ctmentthat fail ed to st ate t hat S an Ant oni o, t he c ity w it hin w hic h the all eg ed offense w as commi tted, w as inc or porated. The cour t found t hat t he i ncor porati on of the city w as suscep tible to judicial notice beca use “its exi sten ce is so easily det ermin able w ith certain ty f rom so urces con sidered reliable, it w ould n ot be good sen se to requ ir e f o rm al proof .” Gonz ale z , 7 2 3 S. W .2 d at75 1 (cit in g 1 R O Y R. RAY , T EX AS P RA CTI CE : T EX AS L AW OF C I V I L A ND C R I M I N AL E V I DE NCE , § 15 1, a t 19 3 ( 3d e d. 1 98 0) ). Therefore, t he c our

t hel d tha t t he omis si on of an all eg ati on of t he fact of inc or porati on w as not fatal to the i ndi ctment

. Id. at 752. Here, un li ke in Gonz

ale z , t he i ndi ctmenti ncl uded s uff ic ien t al leg ati o n s as t o the inc or porati on of the ci ty

. W e are i nst ead as ked w hether a l ack of ev ide nce of inc or porati on bars a co nv ic ti on unde r sec ti on 28.02( 2) (A ) of t he penal code. W e hol d tha t i t doe s n ot, beca use such a fact is capab le of being judicially

notice d. “A judicially

notice d fact m ust be one not s ubj ectto re asona ble dis pute in that it is eit her : (1 ) g enerall y kn ow n w it hin the ter ri tor ial j ur is dicti on of the tr ial co urt; or ( 2) capabl e of acc urate a nd ready dete rmi nati on by re s o rt to sources whose accu racycann ot reaso nab ly be question ed. ” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 201 (b). The United St ate s Ce nsus Burea u w ebsite provi des a list of inco rporate d cities in T e xas
. See U

. S

. C e n s u s B u r e a u , “ Ta b l e 4 : A n n u a l E s t i ma t e s o f t h e P o p u l a t i o n for Inc or porated Pl a ce s in Tex as, Li ste d Al phabeti cal ly : Ap ri l 1, 20 00 to Ju ly 1, 2007,”
a vail able at h tt p ://www .c e n su s. gov/ p o p e st/c it ie s/ SU B- ES T 2 0 0 7 -4 .h tm l (la stvisit e d Au g. 22, 2 008)

. The ci ty

of Cor pus Chr is ti is li ste d as an inc or porated ci ty

. Id. T h e re fo re , we may tak e jud ic ial noti ce of t he fact that Cor pus Chr is ti i s i ncor porated. See Paya n v . St ate , 199 S. W .3d 3 80, 3 83 n. 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st D ist .] 2006, pet. re f’d) ( tak ing j udi ci al noti ce that the c ity

of Brooks hire i s in co rp o rated be caus e i t i s i ncl uded on the Cen sus10

Bureau l is t) ; see als o Hay den v. State , 155 S.W .3d 6 40, 6 47 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 200 5, pet. re f’d) ( tak ing j udi ci al noti ce of informat ion found on w ebsi te) ; Fu l l y lo v e v. State , N o. 13- 00- 169- CR , 200 1 T ex . Ap p. LE X IS 8 009, at * 5- 6 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti N ov . 29, 200 1) (not de signated for pub lication) ( taking judicial not ice tha t the of fense of murd er is a felon y altho ugh no evidence w as prod uced as to tha t fact). Beca use w e may ta ke j udi ci al noti ce that a par ti cul ar ci ty i s i ncor porated and becau se w e tak e not ic e tha t C or pus Chr is ti is an incor porated ci ty , w e hol d tha t i t w as not
neces sar

y thatthe Stat e presentev ide nce to prov e that Cor pus Chr is ti w as inc or porated. See Payan , 199 S.W .3d a t 383

. Acc ordin g ly , R ios ’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. C. In ef

fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel By hi s t hird i ss ue, R ios co ntends thatthe fai lu re o f his tr ial co unsel to re q uestan
acc ompli ce w it ness j ur y i nst ru ctio n w it h respect t o J uarez ’s tes ti mony amounte d to ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. W e di sag re e. 1. St and ard o f Rev iew T o esta blish a claim for inef fective assistance of

coun sel, Rios mu st show: (1) his atto rney’s represe nta tion fell below an object iv e stan dard of reaso nab lene ss; and (2) there is a reason a b le probabi li ty that , butfor h is att or ney ’s er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing
w oul d hav e been d if

f e re n t. Str

ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 , 684 (1984 ); Her nandez v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 ( T e x. Crim

. App. 1986) ; Jay nes v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. W h e th er thi s t esthas been met i s t o be jud g ed on appeal by the total ity of t he re present ati on, n ot by any i sol ated act s
or omi ss ion s. Jay

nes , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 5 1

. T h e b u rd e n is o n t h e a p p e ll a n tt o p ro ve ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. Our rev iew of couns el’ s re p re sent ati on i s h ig hly deferen ti al, and w e w il l find inef fective assistance only if the ap pellan t overcome s t h e s trong presum ption thathis
couns el’ s conduc t fell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851 . Th e acts or om issions tha t form11

the b asi s of appel lan t’ s cl aim of ine ff ect iv e assi sta nce must be ev ide nced by the re cord. See T hom pson v. State , 9 S.W .2d 808, 814 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1999) ; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 85 1. In mos t c ases , a si len t record w hic h prov ide s no ex pla nati on for c ounse l’ s a cti ons
w il l not o v er come t he s trong p re sumpti on of reason abl e as si sta nce. Ma llett v. State , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Thom pson , 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 13-1 4. “Th ese dem and ing standa rds are v irtuallyimpo ssible to me et w hen n o prop er evi den tiaryrecord
w as de v elop ed a t a hea ring on a mo tion for n ew trial.” Cha ver o v . St ate , 36 S.W .3d 6 88, 701 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, no pet.)

. As the cour t of c ri minal appeal s h as noted: Asu b s t a n t ia l r is ko f

fa il u re a c c o m p a n ie s a n a p p e ll a n t ’s c la im o f in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel on d irectappeal

. Rarely w il l a rev iew ing c o urt be prov ide d the oppor

tuni ty to make i ts deter minat io n o n di re ct appeal w it h a record cap able of

provi ding a fair ev alua tion o f the m erits of

the claim involv ing such a serious allegatio n. In the m ajority of in stan ces, the record on dir e ct appeal i s s impl y undev elo ped and ca nnot adeq uatel y reflectthe failings of

trial counse l. Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 813 -14 (foot not e om itted ). 2. A nal ysis As prev iou sl y

note d, J uareztes ti fied attr ial t h a t she hea rd R ios and Gonz ale z say ing they

w ere g oin g to “c ocktai l the h ouse” b e fore t hey l eft in her

mother ’s tr uck

. On cross-examina tion, Rios’s tr ial coun sel asked Ju arez w het her Rios h ad gone into Garz a’s house to ask

for t he k ey s t o J uarez ’s mother ’s tr uck

. The foll ow ing ex chang e the n
occ ur re d: Q. [R ios ’s counsel ] Adr ian , y ou say , goe s back into t he hous e and ask s t o borrow the key s? A. [Jua rez ] Yes. Q. So you gi v e him the keys? A. Yes. Q. W ell , doe sn’ t t hat mak e y ou a par ty to thi s o ffense, too? You’re helpin g t h e m t o do all of this, w hat ever they’ re g oin g to do? A. How does thatmake me pos sib le [ si c] of being w it h th em ?Ar t i cl e 38

. 14 oft he T exas C ode ofC r i m i nal P r ocedur e pr ov i des t hat “[ a] convi ct i on cannot be had 5 upon t he t est i m ony of an accom pl i ce unl ess cor r obor at ed by ot her ev i dence t endi ng t o con nect t he d ef endan t wi t h t he o ff ense com m i t t ed; and t he co r r obor at i on i s not suff i ci ent i f i t m er el y shows t he co m m i ssi on o ft he offe ns e.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art

. 38

. 14 (Ve rno n 2 00 5). 12 Q. W ell , y ou’ v e g iv en th em the key s t o g o do thi s c ri me.

Y ou’ re hel pin g them, aren’ t y ou? A. I do n’ t c om pl et el y s ay i t’ s –t ha t I’ m h el pi ng t he m. Q. W ell , y ou g av e th e m t h e ke y s a nd y ou k new – w hat y ou’ re tes ti fyi ng to, y ou k new w hat t hey

w ere going to do – THE C OU RT: Is that a q uest ion ? Q. [R ios ’s co unsel ] – i sn’ t t hat c or re ct? A. Yes. Q. Oka y
. Hav e y ou been i ndi cte d? A. No. Q

. A n d yo u h a ve n ’tb e e n ch a rg e d wit h t h is cr im e , h a ve

y ou? A. I don ’tse e w hy I shoul d. Ri os cont ends that thi s t est imony byJu arez , al ong w it h her st atement that Ri os and Gonz ale zhad tol d her they w er e g oin g to “co ck tai l” Y banez ’s hous e, c onst it uted an “a dmis si on” by

Ju ar ezthatsh e had par ti ci pated in the c ri me as an ac compl ic e. See Druery
v. State , 225 S.W .3d 491, 498 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007) ( “A n ac compl ic e i s s omeone w ho par ti ci pates w it h the defendant before, dur ing , or after the commis si on of a cr ime and ac ts
w ith the required cu lpab le me nta l state. ”). Moreover, Rios cl aim s thatsince Juare z ’s “a dmis si on” w as uncon trov erted, “s he shoul d be cons ide re d an acc ompli ce as a matt er of law and the jury shou ld have bee n instructe d acco rdingly .” See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt . 38. 14 (Ve rnon 200 5); Bl ake v. State , 971 S.W .2d 4 51, 4 55 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 5 199 8) (stating th at, if

t here e x ists n o dou bt or the ev iden ce clearly shows that a w itness is
an a ccom plice w itness a s a ma tter of la w , the co urt is u nde r a dut y t o so instruct th e jury .);13

De Bla n c v. State , 799 S.W .2d 7 01, 7 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ( same) . “ Al ter nati v ely ,” asserts Rios, “the jury

shou ld have bee n instructe d to de cide th e issue. ” See Blake , 971 S.W .2d a t 455 (“ If the ev ide nce is conflic ti ng , it is proper to lea v e the q uest ion of w hether an i nculpat or

y w it ness i s a n ac compl ic e w it ness as a mat ter of fact to the jur

y under ins tr uct ion s d efini ng the ter m acc ompli ce. ”)

. Ri os sta tes that his tr ial co unsel ’s fail ure to request such an instruct ion am oun ted to inef fective assistance of

coun sel. W e not e tha t J uarez ’s st atement at t ri al w as far from a cl ear “ admis si on” thatsh e had par ti ci pated in the cr ime as a n ac compl ic e. How ev er , ev en i f couns el er re d i n fail ing to req uestan a cc ompli ce w it ness i nst ru cti on, w e do not judg e c ounse l’ s p er formance by any is ola ted act s or omis si ons; ra ther , w e loo k at the t otal ity of the represent ati on. Jay nes , 216 S. W .3d a t 851

. Beca use the record does not ind ic ate w hy R ios ’s tr ial co unsel dec li ned to as k for

an a cc ompli ce w it ness ins tr uct ion , w e canno t s ay thatthe “s trong presumpt ion ” of reas onabl e as si sta nce has been ov er come. See M allett , 65 S.W .3d a t 63. W e c oncl ude t hat R ios has not met his burden to show by a preponderance of the
ev ide nce that his couns el w as ine ff ect iv e. See Jaynes , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 5 1

. Ac c o rd in gl y, his thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, 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 26t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.