1 ... T h e H on or abl e Rober t B ar t on pr es i ded ov er t h e t r i al an d pr on ou n ce d t h e s en t en ce s . T h e H on or abl e Ron

R angel presi d ed ove r t he heari ng on t he m o t i o n f o r new t ri al and s i gned t he o rder d enyi ng t he m o t i o n. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 07 0- CR J ohn W. P RA TT , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 379th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-4433 Honora ble Robert B arton, Judge Pre siding 1 Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 17, 2010 AFF I RMED J ohn W. P ratt wa s convicted by a j u ry of two counts of a g g ravated sexual assault and two counts of indece ncy with a child. The jury assessed the maxi mum sentence of life imprisonment for
eac h of the a g g ravat ed s ex u al assault counts a nd twenty

y ear s imprisonment for ea ch of the indece ncy with a child counts. On appea l, Pratt challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence to support04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 2- the jur y ’s ve rd ic t and

c on te nd s th a t his tr ia l c ouns e l f a ile d to pr ov ide e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nts
.

S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n deter mining the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence , we revie w all of the e vidence in the light most favora

ble to the ver dict to determine w hether any ra t i o n al t rier of

fac t could have f

ound the essential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1 97 9) ; Vo do c ho ds k

yv . S tat e , 158 S.W .3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I n conductinga fa ctual sufficie ncy

revie w, we view all of t he evidence in a neutral light and set aside the verdict only if: (1) the e vid e nc e is so we a k that the ve rd ic t is c le arl y wr on g and manif e stl y un jus t; o r ( 2) the ve rd ic t is ag ainst the g reat w eig ht a

nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 2 3 S. W. 3 d

1 , 1 1 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). “ [D]ue de fe re nc e mus t be ac c or de d the fa c t fin de r’ s d e te rm inatio ns , p art ic ula rl y those deter

minations c oncer

ning the weig ht and cr edibility of the e vidence ,” and a

revie wing court’s dis a g re e me nt “ wi th t

he fa c t f ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio n is a pp ro pr iate on ly when the re c or d c le a rl y indicates such a

step is nece ssary

to arre st the occur

renc e of a manifest injustice.” Id. at 9. A per son commits an offense of ag g ravated sexual assault if the pers o n i n tentionally or knowing ly cause s the penetration of t he sex ual orga n of a child by any means. T EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . § 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). The jury found Pratt g uilty

of committing two c ounts of
a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult by int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly pe ne tr a tin g the se xua l or g an of A. B . w ith his fi ng e r o n o r a

bo ut t wo dif fe re nt d a te s. A pe rs on c omm its an off

e ns e of ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d b y e ng a g ingin s e xua l c on ta c t w ith a child. T EX . P EN . C ODE ANN . § 21 .1 1( a )( 1) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 09 ). “ Se xua l c on ta c t” is d e fi ne d to include any

touchi n g b y a p er s o n o f any part of the g enitals of a c hild with the intent to arouse or04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 3- g r a ti f y th e s e xu a l d e s ir e o f an y p e rson. Id
. at § 21.11(c) (1). The jury found Pratt g uilty

of committing two counts of indece ncy with a child by touching the g enitals of L .B. on or about two dif fe re nt d a te s. I n 20 04 , A. B
. and L .B ., wh o are tw in sis te rs , a tte nd e d a fi ve -d ay ov e rn ig ht church retre a t. Do min ic Va le ri o, a y ou th min ist e r, te sti fi e d th a t A .B . a pp ro a c he d h im t ow ard

the e nd of the re tr e a t,
and sh e wa s v e ry

dis tr a ug ht a nd ne rv ou s. Va le ri o be g an que sti on ing A. B . re g ard ing he r p ro ble m. Valer io testified that A.B .’s beha vior was “ty

pical of othe r childre n who have been se x ually abused.” After A.B . admitted that she had been sexually abused by

her step- g randf

ather , she starte d “shutting down” because she was nervous and embar rasse d. Although L .B. also was at the camp, she di d not approa ch Va lerio. Va lerio testified that a s trial approa ched, A .B. be came very distraug ht to the point of self- mutilation by

cutting he rself, ex perimenting with drug s, and attempting s uicide. Valerio later lear ned the abuse occurre d at a home in San Antonio when L .B. a nd A.B . wer e ar ound four or five y ear s old. On cr oss-examination, Valerio t est ified that he did not re call telling the police that the incident happe ned about f ive y ear s befor e 2005. Valer io also did not reca ll that he told the police the incidents happe ned over and over ag ain and in differe nt place s. Valer io later c larified that the differ ent place s ref

err ed to San Antonio and Austin. A.B . was ninete en y ear s old at the time of trial in 2008. A.B . testified that Pratt, her ste pg ra nd fathe r, se xua lly

a bu se d h e r w he n s he wa s li vin g wi th him and he r g ra ndmot he r, L a ur a Pr a tt. A.B
. s t at ed she w as ar ound four or five at the time. A.B. te stified that the abuse occur red in the bedroom usually

late at nig ht almost every night. L .B. w as in the room whe n the abuse occur red. A.B . stated that Pratt touched he r inside her vag ina with his hands and put his p en is inside of her04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 4- mouth. A.B. also saw Pratt touching L .B. A .B. f irst told her y outh minis ter a bout the abuse thre e or four y ear s befor e trial beca

use she wanted fre edom from keeping a secr et. A.B . stated that it was dif fi c ult fo r he r to ta lk a

bo ut the inc ide nt and sh e ha d be c ome ve ry de pr e sse d a

nd tr ie d to c omm it
su ic ide a fe w m on ths be fo re tr ia l. On cr oss-examination, A.B. admitted it was diff icult to remember things from when she was fo ur or fi ve . A .B . s ta te d th a t he r d a d’ s b e dr oo m w a s n e xt to h e rs , a nd the Pr a tts ha d a do g tha

t w ou ld “sometimes” slee p at the foo t o f h er be d. A.B . did not remember if the door to the be droom was op e n o r c los e d a t ni g ht a

nd did no t r e me mbe r h a vin g nig htm are s w he n s he mov e d in wi th t he Pr a tts
. A.B
. stated that the abuse occur red only in San Antonio, not in Aust in. A.B. state d that she visited and took trips with the Pratts after she m oved to Austin with her da d, but Pratt never a bused her on those occ asions. A.B . believed she was sixt een w hen she told the y outh minister about the sexual abuse. A .B. state d that she did not te ll the y outh minister that the abuse occur red five y ear s befor e 2005. L .B. te stified that her step- g randf ather sexually abused A.B
. and her when they wer e ar ound four or five y ear s old
. L .B. te stified that he would come into their bedroom while they wer e sleeping . L .B. reme mbere d Pratt sticking his ha nd in her pa

nties and rubbinghis hand on her va g ina. L .B . s ta te d tha t the a

bu se ha pp e ne d a lot but not e ve ry sin g le nig ht. L .B . th ou g ht t he a bu se wa s ju st
occur ring to her, a

nd she neve r talked to A.B . about it. L .B. w ould pretend to be aslee p when the abuse oc curr ed. L .B. did not act differe ntly toward Pratt beca use she did not know the touching was
wr on g . L .B . te sti fi e d tha t A.B . ha d be e n re a lly de pr e sse d, wa s c utt inghe rs e lf , a nd tr ie d to c omm it
su ic ide . L .B . b e lie ve d A.B . ha d a har de r time c op ingtha n h e r b e c a us e A. B . r e me mbe re d a

lot wo rs e things than L .B. did.04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 5- On cr oss-ex am i n at i o n , L
. B. ad m i t t edA. B. t o l d L
. B. t h at t h ei r s t ep -gr an d fa t h er d id something to h e r b e fo re L .B . s a id any thi ng to he r da d and ste pmo the r. L .B
. be lie ve d th e y liv e d w iththe Pr a tts fo r a bo ut a y e ar wh e n the y we re fo ur or fi ve . L .B . r e me mbe re d w a kin g up so me tim e s and g oin g to sleep with her

g randmother
. Michae l B., A.B . and L .B.’ s father , tes t i fied that he moved to Austin after living with the Pratts for a y ear . Michae l B. testified that he dec ided to move when he walked in on Pratt y elling and scr eamingat A.B . and L .B. like the y wer e dog s. Michael B . testified that the Pratts drank e very day , but he neve r saw Pratt intox icated. Mic hael B . hear d of the a buse from his churc h pastor thre e y e ars pr ior to tr ia l. Mic ha e l B . r e c a lle d th a t A .B . w ou ld t hr owa fi t and sta rt c ry ingwh e n h e wo uld send A.B . and L .B. to stay with the Pratts after

moving to Austin. On cr oss-examination, Michael B . test i fi ed that he wa s home by around 10:00 e ach nig ht whi le t hey

were l iv in g wit h t he P rat ts . M ich ael B.’s bed roo m was nex t to th e bed roo m w here A.B. and L .B. slept while the y lived with the Pratts. Michael B . testified that the b ed ro om doors wer e open at nig ht. Michael B . testified that the Pratts’ dogwould s l ee p i n A. B. and L .B.’ s room
so me tim e s. Mi chael B. did no t r e c a ll A .B . a nd L .B . h a vin g nig htm are s w hil e liv inga t th e Pr a tts
. Mic ha e l B . s ta te d that A. B
. and L .B
. wo uld sp e nd so me we e ke nd s w iththe Pr a tts and too k tr ips wi th the m a ft e r the y mov e d to Aus tin . M ic ha e l B . s ta te d th a t th e re la tio ns hip be tw e e n h is m oth e r a nd his
se c on d w if

e dete ri or a te d a ft e r h is m oth e r a c c us e d o ne of his wi fe ’s so ns of

a c tin g se xua lly ina pp ro pr ia te tow ard

A. B . a nd L .B . Hi s mothe r m a de the a lle g a tio n b e fo re A. B . to ld t he y ou th minist er a bout Pratt’s abuse. Vi c ki B ., A. B . a

nd L .B .’ s st e pmo the r, fi rs t le arned of th e se xua l a bu se wh e n V a le ri o informed he r about what A.B. ha d told him. Vicki B. lear ned that L .B. also had been abused w hen04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 6- she aske d her. Vicki B. stated t hat L aura Pratt acc used one of her sons of inappropr iately touching A.B . and L .B., but A.B
. and L .B. de nied that any such touching had occ urre d. Vicki B . stated that L a ur a Pr a tt m a de the a lle g a tio n a bo ut h e r so n a

bo ut fi ve y e ars a ft e r the g ir ls mov e d ou t of the Pr a tts ’ ho us e , w hic h w a s se ve ra l y e ars be fo re A. B . told the y ou th m ins te r a bo ut t he se xua l a

bu se by Pr a tt. On cr oss-examination, Vicki B. d i d n ot rec all a discussion with L aura Pratt reg ardingan incident in which Vicki B .’s son and A
. B. l o ck ed t h emselves in a be droom, and L .B. w as cr y ing beca use she c ould not ge t in the room. Vicki B. did not believe A.B . and L .B. ha d discussed the
se xua l a bu se be fo re sh e a sk e d L .B . a bo ut i t. Be tty Merc er, a sexual a ssault nur se examiner, testified that some abuse victims do not re veal the abuse for day s, months, or e ven y ear s. Merc er f urther stated that a f

ive-y ear -old could believe sexual abuse to be norma l be havior. Merc er examined A .B. in O ctober of 2005. Mer cer testified that A.B . repor

ted that her

g randf ather molested her w hen she w as six y ear s old by sticking his finge r up her va g ina while she w as in her be d trying to slee p. A.B . repor ted t hat t he abuse happe ned about three times. A.B
. repor

ted the abuse happene d nine y ear s ag o. Wit h reg ard to Mer cer ’s examination of L .B., L .B. r eporte d that her g randf ather stuck his hand in her pa nts when she wa s five or six. The
a bu se o c c u r

r e d a t n i g h t w h i l e s h e w a s t r y i n g t o s l e e p . L
. B
. r

u b b e d h e r h an d o n h e r kn e e to demonstrate how

her g randf

ather touched he r. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Me rc e r a g re e d th a t A .B . d id n ot r e po rt he r g ra nd fathe r havin g pu t hi s pe nis in he r mou th. Me rc e r furt he r ag re e d tha t A.B . re po rt e d the a bu se ha pp e ne d o nly

thr e e tim e s. Both L aura

Pratt, A.B. a

nd L
. B. ’s g randmother , and Pratt testified that A.B ., L .B., a nd Michae l B. moved in with them in May of 1993
. A. B. and L .B. w ere four y ear s old at the time. L aura put A.B
. and L .B. to sleep every night and left t heir door open. L aura rec alled both A.B . and04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 7- L .B . f re qu e ntl y wa kin g up a t nig ht and c ry

ing
. L a ur a sa id ne ith e r A. B
. no r L .B
. wo uld sle e p w ith her, but L aura

would g o into their room to c omfort them. L aura testified that she sleeps only a fe w h o u rs , an d

s h e w o u l d

kn o w i f P ra t tgo tu

p i nt h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i gh t
. L au ra s t at edt h at h er d o g, wh ic h s le pt i n th e ro om w ithA.B. and L .B ., wo uld y a p if any on e e nte re d A .B . a

nd L .B .’ s r oo m. Two other de fense witnesses, Pratt’s niece , Debor ah Thompson, a nd her daug hter Stace y

Thompson als o t est if ied th at t he P rat ts ’ do g sle pt in th e roo m w it h A. B. an d L .B. After A.B . and L .B. move d to Austin with Michae l B., A.B. and L .B. w ould spend wee kends wi th t he Pr a tts and g o on tri ps wi th the m. L a ur a re c a lle d an inc ide nt wh e n L .B . wa s c ry ingbe c a us e Vicki B .’s son and A.B . had locke d her out of the room. L aura told Michael B . and Vicki B . about the incident. L aura

also rec alled an inc ident when Vic ki B.’s son thre w L
. B. on the g round and tickled her and then threw her on his shoulder and wa s slapping he r re ar. L aura told Michael B . that he nee ded to speak with Vicki B.’ s son beca use the touchingwas inappr opriate. B oth Debora h and Stacey also testified that they

observe d Vicki B .’s son ac ting inappr opriately wi t h A. B. an d L .B., including putting his a

rm betwee n their leg s and flipping them over his shoulder
. Debor ah did not believe the behavior

was a ppropriate and enc ourag ed L aura to talk to Vicki B. Stac ey rec alled that Vi cki B. be cam e ver y

defe ns iv e wh en L aura men ti on ed t hi s t o Vi cki B. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, L a

ur a de sc ri be d Pr a tt a s b e ingg e ntl e , k ind , a nd g oo d w ithanim a ls. L aura stated that she wa s in charg e of disciplining A.B . and L .B. w hen they lived with her. L aura testified that she be lieved A.B . and L .B. w ere ly ing a bout the all eged abuse to g et out of trouble. S t ac ey al s o t es t i fi edt h at s h e b el i ev edA. B. an d L
. B. we re l y i n g. Pr a tt d e nie d ev e r se xua lly mol e sti ngA. B . a nd L .B . a nd state d th a t th e g ir ls w e re lying . Pr a tt was infor med of the allegations in a phone call fr om a detec tive in 2005 and was a rre sted in 2006.04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 8- Pratt rec alled his la st c ontact with A.B. a nd L .B. w as in 2004, and A.B . and L .B. la st spent a lot of time with the Pratts when they took them to Disney land in 2000. The testim ony

of A.B . and L .B. is both leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence to support the jur y ’s ve rd ic t. Se e Gl oc k

zin v . S tat e , 220 S.W .3d 140, 147 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2007, pet. re f’d) ; Pe re z v . S tat e , 113 S.W .3d 819, 838 (Tex
. Ap p . — Au s t in 2003, pet. ref ’d), overruled on othe r gr ou nd s, Tay lor v . S tat e , 2 68 S .W .3 d 57 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ). Al tho ug h th e re we re so me d i s c r e p an c i e s b e t w e e n t h e h i s t o r y g i v e n t o t h e s e x u a l a s s a u l tn ur s e e x a m i n e r , V a l e r i o ’ s t e s t i m o n y, and the testimony

of A.B
. and L .B., the testimony by A.B
. and L .B. w as not so weak as to make the ju ry ’s v erdi ct c lea rl y wro ng and man if est ly un ju st , and the ju ry ’s d ete rm in ati on th at A .B. a ndL .B.
wer e cre dible witnesses is not ag ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. The jury could re asonably

have r ejec ted the evid en ce P ra t t prese nted in an ef fort to establish the lac k of opportunity

to commit the offense s, i.e
. , L au ra be ing a light slee per, the bedroom door be ing le ft op e n, and the do g sle e pin g in t

he ro om. Wit h reg ard to the date of the of fense s, the indictment alleg ed the offe n s es occurre d on or about the 12th day

of Oc tober, 1995, a

nd on or about the 12th da y of October , 1996. Pratt contends that A.B . and L .B. lived w ith the Pratts before 1995; however, t h e “on or about” languag e of a

n indictment allows the State to prove a date other

than the one a lleg ed in the indictment a s l ong as the date is prior

to the pres en t at i o n of the indictment and w ithin the statutory limit ation period. Sle dg e v . S

tat e , 95 3 S.W. 2d 25 3, 25 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); J on es v . S tat e , 900 S.W .2d 392, 396 (Tex. App.—San Antonio,1995, pet. ref ’d). Acc ording ly , even if the testimony established that the date of the offe nses wer e prior to 1995 a nd 1996, the evidenc e is not leg ally or fa ctually

insufficient to s up po rt

the jur y ’s ve rd ic t.04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 9- I N EF FE C TI V E A S S I S T ANCE In h i s t h i r d i s s u e , P r a t t a s s e rt s t h a t h e r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Pratt complains trial counsel: (1) failed to c onduct appropr iate pretria l disc overy and investig ation; (2 ) m ad e n o ef

fo rt s t o ex cl u d e an y ex t ra n eo u s co n d u ct ev i d en ce t h at wa s i n t ro d u ce d at s en t en ci n g; (3 ) d id n ot s pe a k w ithany wi tne sse s p ri or to tr ia l wh o ha d va lua ble inf or ma tio n to pr ov ide and

did
no t pr e pa re wi tne sse s w ho did

te sti fy ; (4 ) fa ile d to have a tr ia l str a te g y or re vie w e vid e nc e g ive n to trial counsel by

Pratt; (5) fa iled to object to hear say testimony

and inadmis s ible evidenc e; and ( 6) withdrew Pratt’s application for pr obation there by ending Pratt’s cha

nce of probation. To succe ed on an ineffe ctive-a ssistance claim, the def endant must show that: (1) c ounsel’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt; and (2) the defic ient perf ormanc e prejudiced the defense
. Strickland v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 , 6 87 (1 98 4) ; Ga rz a v. St ate , 213 S.W .3d 338, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To show de ficient pe rfor mance , the def

endant must prove by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that his counsel’ s repr esentation fell below the s tandar d of prof essional norms. Ga rza , 213 S.W .3d at 347-48. Appe llate re view of tria l counsel’s re prese nt at i on is highly defe rential a

nd presumes that counsel’s a ctions fell wit hin the wide r ang e of r easona ble and pr ofessional a ssistance. Id . at 348. To demonstrate pre judice, the de fenda

nt must show a rea sonable proba bility that, but for counsel’s unpr ofessional err ors, the result of the proce eding would have be en diffe rent. Id . at 348. Pratt prese nted his ine ffe ctive assistance claim to the trial court in a motion for ne w trial, and the trial cour

t denied the motion for ne w trial af ter a hear ing. We t h er ef

o re an al y ze Pratt’s ineffe ctive assistanc e cla im as a challeng e to the denial of his motion for new trial. Cha rle

s v . S tat e , 146 S.W .3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 4 ), supersede d by rule on other grounds , State v. Herndon , 215 S.W. 3d 90 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Sh an k lin v . S tat e , 1 9 0 S. W. 3 d

1 5 4 , 1 5 8 ( T e x.04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 10- App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005), pet. dism’d , 211 S.W .3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n such circ umstances, we revie w the Strickland standard thr oug h an abuse of discretion standa rd, and w e
reve rse only

if the trial cour

t’s decision i s arbitra

ry or unreasonable , viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favora

ble to the ruling
. Sh an k

lin , 1 90 S.W. 3d a t 15 8- 59
. A tr ia l c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n in denying a motion for new trial only when no r easona ble view of

the re cord c ould support the trial court’s r uling. Charles , 146 S.W .3d at 208. A. Fa i l u re t o C o n d

u ct Ap p ro p ri at e P re t ri al Di s co v ery an d I n v es t i gat i o n / T ri al S t ra t egy Pratt contends that his trial counse l failed to conduc t ap p ro p ri ate pr etrial discove ry and inv e sti g a tio n, inc lud ingfa ili ng to sp e a k to wi tne sse s p ri or to t ri a l w ho c ou ld h a ve pr ov ide d v a lua ble information and f

ailing to pr epar e witnesses f or t ri al
. Pratt further

contends trial c ounsel did not h a v e a t r i a l s t r a t e g y. An attorne y

repr esenting a cr iminal defenda nt is charg ed with making an independent investigation of the fac ts of the ca se. Can tu v . S tat e , 99 3 S. W.2 d 7 12 , 7 18 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 1999, pet. re f’d) . This encompasse s the duty to c onduct a leg al and f actua l investigation and to seek out and inter v iew potential witnesses. Id . Howeve r, the duty to conduct an inve stigation is not absolute. Id
. An a tto rn e y ha s the du ty to ma ke re a so na ble inv e sti g a tio ns or

to m a ke a

re a so na ble decision that makes pa

rticular inve stigations unnecessa ry . Id
. We consider a

n attorney ’s dec ision not to investigate , or to limit the scope o f i n v es t i g ation, with a g reat deal of de fer ence to the attorney ’s judg ment, look i n g t o t h e re asonable ness of the de cision in light of the totality of the circ umstances. Id
. At the he ari ng on Pr a tt’ s mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, P a ul G oe ke , a

bo ard c e rt if ie d c ri min a l de fe ns e
a tto rn e y , te sti fi e d a s an e xpe rt wi tne ss. Go e ke te sti fi e d th a t de fe ns e c ouns e l in a se xua l a ssa

ult c a se04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 11- must int ervie w the client, r eview the State’s file, discuss the contents of t he file with the client, and employ an investig ator. Goe ke also stated that the client should be informe d of t he punishment
ra n ge. Go eke a lway s has his clients undertake a poly g raph a nd an indepe ndent psy chiatric or psy cholog ical eva luation. Goek e o b t ains school and other rec ords re g ardingthe victim, rea ds thr ou g h a ny inf or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y the c lie nt, and ta lks wi th any wi tne sse s su g g e ste d b y the c lie nt. Pr a tt t e sti fi e d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l ne ve r d isc us se d th e punis hme nt r ang e fo r t he of fe ns e wi th him; however, Pratt admitted that he knew the r ang e of punishment base d on information from the
ma g istrate . Pr a tt f

ur the r t e sti fi e d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l ne ve r dis c us se d the wi tne ss lis t Pr a tt g a ve him ; ho we ve r, Pr a tt a dmi tte d th a t tr ia l c ouns e l c on ta c te d tw o o f t he lis te d w itn e sse s w ho we re c a lle d to t es t i fy at t ri al
. P ra t ts t at edt h at t ri al co u n s el n ev er d i s cu s s edh i ri n g an i n v es t i g a t o r , a n d al t h o u gh Pratt offe red to take a polyg raph te st, one was ne ver done . Although Pratt took a larg e box of inf or ma tio n to tr ia l c ouns e l, P ratt s ta te d o nly tw o p ho tog ra

ph s f rom th e bo x we re a dmi tte d in to evidenc e. On c ross-examination, Pratt admitted that two lett er s b et we en Pratt and his stepg ra nd da ughte rs a lso we re int

ro du c e d in to e vid e nc e . A lth ou g h Pr att pai d tr ia l c ouns e l $2 ,5 00 to reta in J ack F err ell to review a video a

nd witness statements, Fe rre ll was not retaine d, and trial
c ouns e l di d no t ha

ve any no te s r e g ard inghis me e tin g wi th F e rr e ll. Tr ia l c ouns e l a lso fa ile d to introduce into evide nce A .B.’ s My Space pa g e which c ontained re fer ence s to drug use. I nitially , we note that Pratt fails to detail what informat i o n or evide nce tr ial counsel fa iled to obtain or how it would have been benefic ial to his case. Se e Coc hran v . S tat e , 78 S.W .3d 20, 25 (T e x. Ap p. —T y le r 200 2, no pe t.) ; Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 915 S.W .2d 897, 906 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref

’d). For example, Pratt c riticizes de fense counsel’s f ailure to c ontact seve ral witnesses; howeve r, P ratt never details what information those witnesses would have provided that04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 12- wo uld have be e n mor e be ne fi c ia l to P ratt tha n th e inf or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y

the wi tne sse s w ho did testify
. I n addition, Pratt a sserts defe nse counsel was inef fec tive for f

ailing to r etain an inve stigator, but Pratt does not detail what benef icial i nformation an investigator would have been a ble to obtain. Tr ia l coun sel tes ti fie d th a t he did e xplor e the ide a

of re ta ini ngDr . Jac k F e rr e ll, a fo re ns ic psy cholog ist who deals with children, a s an expert witness; howeve r, af ter revi ew i n g t h e file a

nd dis c us sin g the c a se wi th t ri a l c ouns e l fo r a

bo ut a n h our, Dr . F e rr e ll t old

tr ia l c ouns e l th a t he c ou ld not help him. Trial counsel stated that he asked Dr. Ferr ell to revie w t he ca se and de termine whe ther there wer e any

cre dibilit y

issues with the witness statements or the f orensic inter

view. Trial counse l further

testified that he ha d numerous conve rsations with the detec tive investigating the c ase. When trial c ounsel told the detective t hat P ratt would not be willing to g ive
a state me nt w ith ou t tr ia l c ouns e l be ingpr e se nt, the de te c tiv e re sp on de d th a t he did no t w ant t o ta lk to Pratt if Pratt was “g oing to law y er up.” Trial counse l did not reca ll Pratt asking to take a polyg raph e x am, bu t counsel does not
rec om m en d t h em beca

use they are not admissible. Trial counsel a lso did not recommend a plethesmog raph or

an Abel assessment bec ause Pratt denied abusingA.B . and L .B. Tr ial counsel would only

use that testing in the event the client admitted eng ag ing in the behavior to e stablish that the client was not a sexual pre dator. Counsel f urther testified that he did not believe a n investigator
was ne cessa

ry g iven the natur e of the case . T ri al co u n s el s tated that he did make notes from the State’s file a lthough the note s were not in his file. Trial counse l testified that he met with Pratt on
nume ro us oc c a sio ns , re vie we d the State ’s fi le , r e vie we d th e vid e ota pe d in te rv ie w a

nd the wi tne ss statements, and spoke to witnesses. Counsel stated that he did not cal l o n e witness mentioned by the Pratts beca

use the witness stated that Pratt tried to g rope her when he was drunk. Trial counse l04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 13- stated that he did r eview the information in the box P ratt broug ht to him, and that he did introduce tw o le tt e r s A
. B
. o r

L
. B
. s e n t t

h a t w e r e in

th e b o x. Trial counse l also testified reg ardinghis trial stra te gy : h e in te n d e d to e s ta b li s h in c onsistencies in the testimony ; and he intende d to focus on the incide nts involvi ng Vicki B .’s son. B. Fa ilure to Convey Plea Off ers Pratt ass erts that trial c ounsel neve r discussed the State’ s plea off er w ith him unt il the day of trial. The plea of

fer was for ten y ear s. Pratt testified that trial counsel ne ver e x plained the plea offe r to him in terms of the ra ng e of punishment. Pratt also testified co u n s el n ever explained whether he wa s elig ible for pr obation. On cr oss-examination, however, Pratt admitted that he was
un wi lli ngto p le a d guil ty

or no c on te st, and

he c ho se to g o to tr ia l. Trial counse l testified that he informe d Pratt of the plea barg ain offer, and Pratt told him he
wo uld ne ve r p le a d o r a dmi t th a t he did so me thi ng . Cou

ns e l st a te d th a t he e xpla ine d th e ple a pr oc e ss to P ratt, and

Pr a tt t old him that he did

no t want to ac c e pt pr ob a tio n if he ha d to a dmi t r e sp on sib ili ty for e ng ag ing in the se x ual ac ts. Counsel testified, “ J ohn was not g oing to take any offe r. He was not goingto stand up there a nd say no contest or guilty . That wa s his posit ion.” C. Fa ilure to Objec t to Hear say Testimony Pratt further

contends that trial c ounsel failed to object to Vale rio’s testimony which wa s entirely hear say . Trial counse l stated t h at he did not obj ect on the ba sis of hear say beca use he
wa nte d to f ocu s on th e inc on sis te nt s ta te me nts . T ri a l c ouns e l te sti fi e d th a t so me of the de ta ils in Va le r io ’ s te s ti mo n y w e r e in c o n s is te n t w it h A
. B
. ’ s s tate me n t, in c lu d in g in c o n s is te n c ie s in the location wher e the of

fense s occur

red. H e al s o t es t i fied that he used Va lerio’s stateme nt for imp e a c hme nt p ur

po se s. He dis a g re e d th a t A .B .’ s v ide ota pe d s ta te me nt c on ta ine d th e same04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 14- inconsistencies as Valer io’s testimony
. Trial counsel believed that the inconsistencies broug ht out throug h Valer io’s testimony made Pratt’s defe nse strong er. D. No Eff

ort to Ex clude Extraneous Conduct Evidenc e at Sentenc ing Pratt next contends that trial c ounsel failed to make any eff orts to exclude ext

r aneous c onduct
e vid e nc e a t se nte nc ing . T he a dd iti on a l con du c t abo ut wh ic h Pratt co mpl a ins wa s th a t Pr a tt w ou ld make A.B . smell his hand after touching her a

nd make he r smell hi s p enis . This evidence was proper ly admitted, howeve r, bec ause the State can a dd additional d et ai l s rega rding the offe nse at punishment that are not a dmitted during guil t / i n nocenc e. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt
. 37.07, § 3(a) (1) ( Ver

non 2006) (pr oviding tria l court may admit evidence reg ardingcirc umstances of the off ense f or which de fenda

nt is being trie d at punishment phase of trial). E. Fa ilure to Proffe r F avora ble Evidenc e at Sentenc ing Pratt asserts that trial c ounsel failed to pr esent fa vorable evidenc e at se ntencingthat was provided to him, including acc ounts Pratt ope ned for A.B . and L .B. a nd milit ary

awa rds he r ece ived. Trial counse l stated that Pratt had alr eady testified re g ardinghis mil itary service during the g uilt/i nnocenc e phase of t rial. Counsel also stated t hat he decide d not to call witnesses at sentencing beca use the witnesse s would have te stified t o t h e s ame infor mation they

provided at the g uil t/i nn oc e nc e ph a se of

tr ia l. T ri a l c ouns e l di sc us se d th e po ssi bil ity of c a lli ngL a

ur a a s a wi tne ss during punishment to discuss her hea lth condition and her need for Pratt in the hom e, but P ratt stated that he did not want L aura called to the sta

nd. F. Wit hdraw n Probation Application Pratt further

complains that trial counse l withdrew his applic ati on for pr obation, there by ending Pratt’s cha

nce of p ro b at ion. Trial counse l testified that he discussed w ithdrawing the04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 15- a pp lic a tio n w ithPr a tt. B oth tr ia l c ouns e l and Pr a tt b e lie ve d th a t th e jur y wa s n ot g oin g to g ive Pr a tt p r o b a t i o n . T r i a l c o u n s e l t e s t i f i e d t h a t P r a t t ’ s o n l y c h an c e t o g e tp r o b a t i o nw a s t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, and Pratt re fused to ac cept r esponsibility
. Tr ia l c ouns e l summa

ri zed his re a so ns fo r wit

hd ra wi ng the pr ob a tio n a

pp lic a tio n a s f

oll ow s, “one, J o h n wa s n o t going to take the stand and a dmit responsibili ty for the a pplication – on the application for probation. Two, I felt t he jury , as did J ohn, felt that the jury was not g oing to g ive him pr obation. Three , Ifig ured I could use that [the withdrawingof the a pplication] t o show that he ac cepte d responsibility for his ac tions.” C ounsel stated that base d on his ex perie nce, the jury
w o u l d n o ta s s e s s p r o b a t i o nu n l e s s P r a t ta c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. G. Clo sin g Ar g ume nts Fi n a ll y , Pr a tt c o mp la in s a b o u t th e 1 1
- li n e c lo s in g ar g u me n t tr ia l c o u n s e l g a v e a t the conclusion of the punishment he aring
. T ri al co unsel stated that he r efe rre d to any sentenc e being a death sentence for Pratt, who was 68 y ear s old at the time of trial, in an e ffor t to reac h any

jurors opposed to the death penalty . Trial counse l stated he wa s try ing to g et t h e j u ry t o t h ink that any sentenc e would b e a death sentenc e. Since Pratt would not acce pt responsibility , trial counsel decide d to acc ept responsibil ity by informing the jury

that Pratt acc epted their

verdic t. There fore , counsel’s f

ocus duringclosing argument was to make the jur y believe that Pratt acc epted responsibility

and to emphasize that any sentenc e would be a

“death” sentenc e g iven Pratt’s ag e. H. Conclusion Constrained by

the applica

ble standar d of re view, we must view the evidenc e in the lig ht most fa vorable to the trial court’ s ruling. Se e Sh an k lin , 190 S.W .3d at 158-59. Althoug h some of the evidenc e is conflicting , we must defe r to the trial cour t’s resolution of those conf licts. Se e id
.04
- 09
- 00 07 0- CR

- 16- Th e fa c t th a t ano the r atto rn e y mig ht h a ve purs ue d a

dif fe re nt c ours e of

a c tio n o r tr ied the c a se differ ently

will not support a finding of ineffe ctive assist an ce of counse l. Di c k e rso n v . S tat e , 87 S.W .3d 632, 637 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.). Given tria l co u n s el ’s t estimony explaining the re asons for the actions he took or r ef ra i n ed from taking , the trial cour t could have deter mined that trial counsel wa s not deficient in his perf ormanc e and ha d a trial strateg y . There fore , althoug h the def

ensive c ourse c hosen by

counsel mig ht not have bee n as complete or detailed a s the
co u rs e t h at wo u l d

h av e b ee n

t ak en b y t h e e x p er twh o t es t i fi edat t h e m o t i o nfo r n ew t ri al h ea ri n g, the tr ia l c ourt did no t a

bu se its dis c re tio n in de te rm ini ng that c ouns e l’ s a c tio ns ha d a pla us ibl e ba sis
. Se e id . (noting any

err or in trial strateg y

will be deeme d inadequate re prese ntation only if counsel’ s actions lac k any

plausible basis). C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ments are aff irmed. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice DO NO T PU B L I SH