### NUM BER 13-09- 0057 8-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
SIM ON ORT IZ, 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 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez App ell ant S imon Or

ti zappeal s t he r ev ocat ion of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.0 2 (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). Followi ng a plea of true at his
re v ocat ion h e a rin g, the t ri al cour t found t hat O rt izco mmitt ed v iol ati ons of his ter ms of
c o m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n a n d a s s e s s e d h is p u n is h m e n ta tf ive ye a rs ’ c o n f in e m e n t

. By t wo2

is sues , w h i c h w e r e n u mb e r a n d r e o r g a n i z e a s o n e , O rt i zc o mp l a i n s t h a th e r e c e i v ed ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el at t he r ev ocat ion st ag e bec ause his co unsel fail ed to i nv es ti g at e hi s me nt al h ea l th h i s to r y . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Ortizw as indicte d for agg rav ate d assa ult as follows:

. . . on or aboutJan u a ry 29, 2006, i n N ueces C ounty , Tex as, [O rt iz ] di d the n and ther e i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly , or r eck les sl y caus e bodi ly inj ur y to Vaw n Hue H unter by striking Vawn Hue Hunte r and did then and there u se or exhibit a dea dly w eapon, to- w it : a hammer , dur ing the commi ss ion of sai d as saul t .

. . . See id

. Pr ior

to tr ial , O rt iz ’s co unsel fil ed a moti on for psy chi atr icex aminat ion. I n the
mo tion, coun sel cont end ed that Ortiz w as una ble to assist in his ow n de fense . On March 9, 20 06, t he moti on for psy chi atr icev alu ati o n wa s g ra nted by the tr ial co urt. R aul Cap it ain e, M .D ., a member of the A meri can Board of Forensi c Ex aminers, per formed th e
ev a l u a t i o n o n A p r i l 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d s u b mi t t e d h i s fi n d i n g s t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt

. D r. C api tai ne found Or ti zto be c ompetentto sta nd tr ial and t hat medi cat ion w as neces sar y to “a ttai n or maint ain c o m petenc e.” O n Apr il 19, 2006, Or ti zsi g ned a ple a ag re ement i n w hic h he ple aded g uil ty

to ag g ra v ated ass aul t and r ecei v ed s ev en y ears’ co mmunity su per v is ion

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. Ann . art. 42 .12 § 5 (Vernon Supp . 200 9). On Au gust 18, 2009 , the Sta te f iled a m otion to rev oke p roba tion, alleging that Ortiz
v iol ated his probati on by co mmitt ing an a ss aul t i n H ar ri s Cou nty , Tex as, on Jul y 25, 2 009. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 01 (Vernon Supp

. 200 9). On Septe mb er 23, 200 9, Ortiz requeste d tha t he be app ointe d an atto rney because he did n ot ha v e the mea ns to reta in one, and t he c our

t assign e d Or

ti znew co unsel to re pr esenthi m in the re v ocat ion p ro ce e d in g.3

On F ebr uar

y 24, 2010, at hi s rev ocation hear ing , O rt izpl eaded t ru e to the all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n the moti on to rev oke. The tr ial co urt found t hat O rt izv iol ated the t e rm s o f h is co m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n , re vo k e d O rt iz' s p ro b a t io n , a n d se n t e n c e d O rt iz t o f ive y ears’ confinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W & A PPLI C A B LE L AW F o r O rt iz t o e s t a b li s h a cl a im o f in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l, h e m u s t sh o w: (1) that his cou nsel’s represe nta tion f ell below an o bjective st and ard of reason able ness; and ( 2) that , butfor h is att or ney ’s unprofessi onal errors, ther e is a r eason abl e probabi li ty that the resul t of the pr oceed ing w oul d hav e been different. Str ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U. S. 6 68, 6 88- 94 ( 1984)

. A r eason abl e probabi li ty i s o ne th at i s s uff ic ien t t o under mine confide nce in the o utc ome of the c ase. Id

. W hether the tw o- prong ed tes t has been met depends upon the total it y of the re pr esent ati on and is not deter mined by i sol ated act s o r omis si ons. Rod

ri guez v. Sta te , 899 S.W .2d 658, 665 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1 9 9 5) ; Jayne s v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. T h e b u rd e n is o n a p p e ll a n tt o p ro ve in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l b y a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851. W e pr esume that couns el gav e his clie n t r e a s ona ble prof ession al assistan ce, an d ou r review of coun sel’s
re pr esent ati on i s h ig hly deferen ti al. See M

allett v. State , 65 S .W .3 d 59 , 63 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 1 ) (ci ti n g Tong v. Sta te , 25 S.W .3d 7 07, 7 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ); Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. For

an a ppel lan t t o defeat t he presumpt ion of re asona ble pro f e ss ion al
ass is tanc e, an al leg ati on of i neff ect iv eness “ must be fir mly founded in the reco rd , and the
re cord must af

firmat iv ely

demonstr ate the all eg ed i neff ect iv eness ." Ma llett , 65 S.W .3d a t4

6 3 (cit in g Thom

pson v. Sta te , 9 S.W .3d 808, 814 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1999) ). G ener all y , t he trial record w ill be u nde rdevelope d an d w ill not ade quately ref lect the e rrors of t rial counse l. Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4; Kem p v . St ate , 892 S.W .2d 1 12, 1 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1s t D is t.] 1994, pet. r ef'd) . O n d irectappeal , a defendant c annot usual ly r ebut the pr esumpt ion thatco unsel ’s per formance w as the resul t of so und or r eason abl e tr ial strate gy bec a u s e the reco rd is norma lly silent as to cou nsel’s de cision-ma king process. Str ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 8; see Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. III
. D I S CUS S I ON B y h is s o le is s u e o n a p p e a l, O rt iz co m p la in s t h a t h is c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i ve becau se he fail ed to i nv est ig ate O rt iz ’s mental h e a lt h hi sto ry pr ior to the h ear ing on t he Sta te’s mo tion to rev oke. It is Ortiz ’s conte ntion that had his counse l inv estigated his
me nta l health hist o ry , coun sel w ould have discovered that Ortizhad bee n previously
ex amined by

a ps y chi atr is t foll ow ing a c our t- or der ed compet ency ev alu ati on i n Apr il 2006. Or ti zarg ues that his mental defects w er e ev ide nt an d tha t he was n o t able to understa nd th e proceed ing s d ur ing hi s p ro bati on r ev ocat ion hear ing due to his mental il lne ss
. Or

ti z re fers thi s Cou rt to tw o i nst ances thatoc cur re d dur ing the hear ing w her e he gav e incorrect an sw ers to the t ri a l c o urt w hen he w as allegedly conf used . Th e f irst
e xa m p le o c c u rr e d d u ri n g t h e fo ll o win g e xc h a n ge b e twe e n t h e co u rt a n d O rt iz: [T he Cou rt]: Did y ou in f act sign the pa perwork? [Or ti z ]: No. [Or ti z ’s C ounse l] : Oh, y eah, y eah, y eah. [Ortiz ]: Yes.5

[The C our

t]: Oka y . Di d any body forc e y ou to si g n i t? [Or ti z ]: No. [The C our

t]: And di d any body promis e y ou anythi ng to g et y ou to s ig n it ? [Or ti z ]: No. [ T h e Co u rt ] : O k a y. Di d yo u si gn e ve ryt h in g h e re f re e ly a n d vo lu n t a ri ly? [Or ti z ]: Y es, si r. Or ti zco ntends thatthi s e x ample of him hav ing to be r eminde d of the paper w or k h e had jus t s ig ned s how s t hat t her e w as a c lea r lac k o f unders tandi ng on h is par t. Mo ments lat er , O rt izw as ask ed anot her q uest ion by

the cour t: [The Cou rt ]: To the a ll eg ati ons in the mot ion to re v oke, how do y ou ple ad, t ru e or

not tr ue? [Or ti z ]: Not tr ue. [Or ti z ’s C ounse l] : W e w ent o v er – w e w ent o v er

thi s. The as saul t. [ O rt iz] : O k a y. [Or ti z ’s C ounse l] : And y ou to ld me i t w as tr ue. [Or ti z ]: True. [The C our

t]: Is any body

forc ing y ou to pl ead t ru e? [Or ti z ]: No. [ T h e Co u rt ] : A n d a re yo u p le a d in g t ru e h e re f re e ly a n d vo lu n t a ri ly? [Ortiz ]: Yes. Or ti zarg ues that he forg ot ho w he w as ple adi ng to the prob ati on v iol ati on all eg ati ons and had t o, ag ain , be re minded by co unsel to ple ad tr ue.O r t i z di d no t f i l e a m ot i on f or new t r i al , and t he appel l at e r ecor d i s si l ent as t o evi dence r egar di ng t he 1 st r at egy of

O r t i z ’ s counsel at hi s re v ocat i on hear i ng. I n f act , we can not assum e t hat O r t i z ’ s coun sel di d no t i n v e s ti g a te O rti z’ s c o m p e te n c y w h e n th e re c o rd i s s i l e n t a s to th e d e p th o f c o u n s e l ’ s i n v e s ti g a ti o n
. See H e rn a n d e z v . S ta te , 726 S. W

. 2d 5 3, 57 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 6) ; B ro w n v . S ta te , 129 S. W

. 3d 7 62, 767 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 2004, no pet

. )

. Because O r t i z r ai sed t he i neff ect i v e assi st ance ofcoun sel cl ai m on di r ect app eal , hi s r evo c ati on counsel has not had t he o ppor t uni t y t o r espond t o O r t i z ’ s conce r ns; t he re a s o n a b l e n e s s o f th e c h o i c e s m a d e b y O rti z’ s c o u n s e l m a y i n v o l v e fa c ts th a t d o n o t a p p e a r i n th e a p p e l l a te re c o rd

. S e e R y l a n d e r v . S ta te , 101 S. W

. 3d 1 07, 11 1 (T ex
. C ri m
. App. 200 3)

. O r t i z ’ s coun sel shou l d be a ff o rd e d a n o p p o rtu n i ty to e x p l a i n h i s a c ti o n s b e fo re b e i n g d e n o u n c e d a s i n e ff e c ti v e
. S e e i d

. at 111

. 6 Pr ior to his plea agreement for agg ra v ated ass aul t i n 2006, Or ti zunder w ent a co urtor der e d c o m petenc y

hear ing

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 46B.00 4 ( Ver non 2 0 0 6 )

. Th e o p i n i o n o f D r
. C a p i t a i n e , t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t w h o e v a l u a t e d O rt i z , w as that medic ati ons w er e necess ar y to maint ain Orti z ’s co mpetenc y and that he bel iev ed Or ti zw as abl e to “[ r] ati onal ly

understa nd th e c harg es and pot enti al cons eq u e n ce s o f the pendi ng pr oceed ing s. ” M o re o v er , D r. C api tai ne not ed th at O rt izw as abl e to tes ti fy but t hat “[q]uestion s may have to be repe ate d an d ph rased in basic language.” There is no e v ide nce in the rec or d that i ndi cat es w hether Or ti zw as medic ated at t he ti me of his pl ea barg ain for t he 2006 ag g ra v ated ass aul t or at his probati on r ev ocat ion h e a ri n g o n O c t o b e r 6 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d we ca n n o tgu e s s a s t o t h e m a t t e r b e c a u s e in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel cl aims m ustbe fir mly es tabl is hed by

the re cord, no t bui lton
re trospect ive sp e cu lat ion

. See B one v . St ate , 77 S.W .3d 8 28, 8 35 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1 2002)

. Beca use Or

ti zdi d notfil e a mot ion f or new tr ial on i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el groun ds or elicit testim ony concernin g c oun sel’s reason s for not se eking a com pet ency hear ing or

as cer tai nin g w hether

or not co unsel made an y i nv est ig ati on i nto O rt iz ’s mental heal th, ther e i s n o ev ide nce in the rec or d to sug g estthatthe act ion s o f Ort iz ’s r ev ocat ion
couns el w er e notthe re su lt of sound and re asona ble tr ial st ra teg y . See Jaynes , 216 S.W .3d a t 855. Acc or din g ly , Or ti zhas not re butte d the st ro ng pr esumpt ion thathi s c ounse lB ec au s e O rt i z fai l ed t o m ee t t he fi rst pro ng of St r i ckl and , we ne ed n ot consi der t he se cond pr ong, 2 th a t i s , w h e th e r th e re s u l t o f th e p ro c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i ff e re n t. S e e G a rc i a v . S ta te , 57 S. W

. 3d 4 36, 44 0 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 01 ). 7 pr ov ide d professi onal and obj ect iv ely r eason abl e as si sta nce. See M allett , 65 S.W .3d a t 62; Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d at 813 . Becau se Ortizhas no t esta blished that his counse l’s per formance fell bel ow an obj ect iv ely r eason abl e s tandard, he has not met th e first pr ong
o f Str ic kl and

. See Jaynes , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d at 85 5 (cit in g Ma llet , 65 S. W .3d at 67). Ortiz ’s 2 is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 16th day of Jul y , 201 0.