1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 1 .0 3 (a ), (e)(4 )(A ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ).



## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 168- CR QUAL ANE J AM E S W I L L I AM S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t Q u a l a n e J a m e s W i l l i a m s ap p e a l s his c o n v i c ti o n for the ft. 2 W e a f f i r m. O n Fe br ua r y 1 5 , 2 007 , Tonya Bi sh op c as hed he rI RS r ef und c hec k f or $6 , 28 7. The nex tday, appel l antgave her a r i de t o r un er r ands and t o pay bi l l s.2

A ppr oxi m at el y $3 , 60 0 i n cash rem ai ned i n To nya’ s w al l etw hen t hey st opp ed at h e r a p a rt m e n t s o s h e c o u l d r u n i n t o r e t r i e v e h e r c e l l p h o n e a n d us e t he bat hr oom . Rea l i z i ng t hats he had l efthe rw al l eti n appel l ant ’ s ca r , s he r an out t o t he par ki ng l otonl y t o f i nd t hatappel l anthad gon e. W hen i tbecam e a p p a re n t th a t a p p e l l a n t w a sn o tc o m i n g b a c k , T o n y a c a l l e d th e p o l i c e . F o rt W o rt h P o lic e D e t e c t iv e M i c h a e l M c C o r m ic ka t t e m p t e d s e v e r a l t im e st o c a ll app el l antbuthene veran sw er ed. The w al l etw asl at erf ound by a s t r ang eran d gi ven t o on e of To ny a ’ s f r i e nd s w ho r e t ur ne d i t t o To ny a , bu t t hem or e t han $3, 000 i n c as h w asm i ss i ng. A p p e l l a n t w a sc h a rg e d w i th th e ft o f p ro p e rtyv a l u e d a t $ 1 ,5 0 0 o r m o re b u t l e s s th a n $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 . A ju ryf o u n d h i m g u i l ty , h e p l e a d e d tru e to th e S ta te ’s e n h a n c e m e n t al l e g a ti o n , a n d afte r he a ri n g ev i d e n c e o n th e issu e o f pu n i sh m e n t, th e tr i a l co u rtse n ten c e d h i m to s i xy e a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t. I n t hr eepoi nt s, app el l ant cl ai m s t hatt he evi den cei s f ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent to s u p p o rt th e v e rd i c t, h i stri a l c o u n s e l w a si n e ffe c ti v e , a n d t h e t r ia l c o u rt er r one ous l y a dm i t t ed hea r sa y. In h is f ir s tp o in t , a p p e lla n tc o n t e n d st h a tt h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly i n s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt h i s c o n v i c ti o n . W h e n re v i e w i n g fa c tu a l s u fficie n c y , w e3 ... Nea l v. S tate , 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), c ert. denied, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); W a tso nv. S tate , 204 S . W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

4 ... Lanconv. State , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417. 5 ... W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. 3 vi ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng nei t herpa rt y. 3W e t hen ask w h e t h e rt h e e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hatt he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd m ani f es t l y un j us torw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is m a n i fes tl yu n j u st. 4To r ever se underthe second g r oun d, w e m ustdet er m i ne, w i t h s om e o bj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he r ec or d, tha tthe gr ea tw ei ghtan d pr epo nde r anc e o fal l t he evi den ce , t hough l ega l l y s uf f i ci ent , c ont r adi ct s t he v e rdict. 5 A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a llyin s u f f ic ie n tb e c a u s e h is t est i m ony p r esent ed a “r easonabl e hypo t hesi s” t hatTo nya i s a s pur ned l over who f a b r i c a t e d h e rs t o ryt o p u n i s h h i m f o rb r e a k i n g o f ft h e i rr e l a t i o n s h i p . He a ls o c o n t e n d st h a tT o n y a ’s c r e d ib ilit ys u f f e r e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e d id n o tc a ll t he f r i end t o w hom t he w al l etw as r et ur ned as a cor r obo r at i ng w i t ness.6 ... Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 7 ... Id. a t9. 4 In e s s e n c e , a p p e l l a n ta s k su st o h o ld t h a tt h e e v id e n c e isf a c t u a lly i ns uf f i ci entbe ca us e h i s t es t i m ony i s m or e c r edi bl e t han Tonya ’ s. Undert he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew , how ever , unl ess t he r ecor d cl ear l y r eveal s t hat a d i f f er entr es ul ti s app r opr i at e, w e m us tde f ert o t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w ei ghtt o be gi ven cont r adi ct ory t es t i m oni alev i den cebe ca us e r es ol ut i on oft he confl i ct“ oft e n t ur nso n a n e va l ua t i on o fc r e di bi l i t y a nd d e m e a no r , a nd t ho se j u ro rs w e re i n a tte n d a n c e w h e n th e te s ti m o n y w a sd e l i v e re d .” 6 Th us, w e m ust gi ve due defer ence t o t he f act f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i ons, “part i cul ar l y t hose d e te rm i n a ti o n sc o n c e rn i n g th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e .” 7 Tonya ’ s t es t i m ony and ap pel l ant ’ s t es t i m ony di r ec t l y conf l i ct . She t es t i f i ed thaton F ebr uary 16, 2007 , hedr ovehe rar ound FortW ort h t o r un e r r a n d s a n d s t o l e h e rmo n e ywh e n s h e s t o p p e d br i e f l y a th e ra p a rt me n t . He t est i f i ed t hath e h ad no contactw i t h heran d w as no teven i n FortW ort h af t er t hef i r s tp a rto fJ a nu a ry 2007. A f t err evi ew i ng a l l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , w e f i nd no t hi ng i n t he r ec or d t o w ar r antove rt ur ni ng t he j ury’ s r es ol ut i on of t he con f l i ct i ng t es t i m ony i n t hi s ca se . To t he con t r ary, the r ec or d s upport s t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on. A l th o u g h a p p e l l a n t te s ti fi e d th a t h i sla s t c o n ta c t w i th T o n y a w a sw e e k sb e fo re8 ... Str i ckl and v. W

ashi ngton , 466 U. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052 , 2064 (1 9 8 4 ); Sa l

i n a s v. S tate , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 9 ... Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). 5 s h e c a s h e d h e rIR S c h e c k , h is a r r e s t in g o f f ic e r t e s t if ie d t h a t o n t h e w a yt o ja il, a p p e l l a n t v o l u n te e re d t h a t T o n y a h a d g i v e n h i m t h e m o n e y . B e c a u s e th e re c o rd d o e s n o tc le a r lyr e v e a l t h a tt h e ju ry ’s r e s o lu t io n o fc o n f lic t sin t h e t e s t im o n yis c l e a rl yw ron g o r m a n i fes tl yu n j u st, t h e ev i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtthe v e rdict. W e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. I n a p p e l l ant ’ s second poi nt , he cont ends t hathi s t r i al counsel w as i nef f ec t i ve bec aus e h e d i d notca l l app el l ant ’ s par ent s t o t es t i f y a nd hedi d not i nt r odu ce appel l ant ’ s cel l phon e r ecor ds. To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e ofco uns el , ap pel l antm us ts how by a pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den cet hat hi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l be l ow t he s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m sa n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i alw oul d ha ve b e e n d i fferen t. 8 I n e val uat i ng t he ef f ec t i ven es s ofco uns elunde rt he f i r stpr ong, w e l ook t o t he t ot al i t y oft he r epr esent at i on and t he part i cul arci r c u m st ances ofeach case. 9The i ss ue i s w het herco uns el ’ s as si st anc e w asr ea so nab l e u nde ral l t he ci r cum st ances and pr evai l i ng pr of essi onal nor m s att he t i m e oft he al l eged10 ... See Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t688– 89, 104 S. Ct . a t2065 . 11 ... Sal i nas , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 ; Ma l le tt v. S tate , 6 5 S. W . 3d 59, 63 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). 6 e rro r. 10R evi ew ofcouns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on i s hi ghl y def er ent i al , an d w e i ndul ge a s t r ong p r esu m pt i on t hatco uns el ’ s con duc tf el l w i t hi n a w i de r ang e o f r ea so nab l e r epr es ent at i on. 11 A ppe l l antco nt end s t hathi s t r i alatt or neydi d notpr ov i de ef f ec t i ve as si st anc e b ec aus e h e di d not ca l l app el l ant ’ s par ent s t o t es t i f y a nd be ca us e h e di d nots ee k t o i nt r oduc e ev i den ceofap pel l ant ’ s phoner ec or dst o r ebu t D e t e c t iv e M c C o r m ic k ’s t e s t im o n yt h a th e a t t e m p t e d s e v e r a l t im e st o c a ll appel l ant ’ s cel l phon e and appel l ant ’ s par ent s‘ house. A ppel l antt est i f i ed t hat t he num ber s T onya gave D et ect i ve M cC or m i ck t o cal l w er e t he w r ong num ber s. H e a r gu e s t ha t hi s pa r e nt s w ou l d ha ve t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he y ha ve had t he sam e phonenum berf orove rt en yea r s and t hatt he num beri s di f f er entf r om t he one pr ovi ded by Tonya i n t he pol i ce rep ort . A ppe l l antcl ai m s t hathi s ce l l phon e r ec or dsw oul d haveshow n t hathe di d notr ec ei ve anycal l s f r om T onya on t he d a ys h e c la im sh e s t o le m o n e yf r o m h e r . H e a s s e rt st h a tt h ise v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n su ffi c i e n t t o ca st se ri o u s d o u b t on T o n y a ’s cre d i b il i ty a n d tha t i ts absence com pr om i sed hi s abi l i t y t o pr esenta def ense.12 ... S ee W i ggi n s v. Sm ith , 539 U. S. 510, 521, 123 S. Ct . 2527 , 2535 ( 200 3) ( quot i ng Str

i ckl and, 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 0

– 9 1 , 1 0 4S . C t. a t 2 0 6 6 ); see al so Pa tr i ckv. S tate , 9 0 6 S .W .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 9 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), cert. denied, 5 1 7 U .S . 1 1 0 6 (1 9 9 6 ).

13 ... Ja ckso nv. S tate , 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). 14 ... Id . 15 ... Id . 16 ... O so ri

o v. S tate , 9 9 4S .W .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 9 , p e t re f’d ).

17 ... Gi b b s v. S tate , 7 S .W .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 9 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 9 , p e t re f’d ). 7 St r at egi c a nd t ac t i ca l de ci si onsm adeaft era t hor ough i nve st i gat i on oft he l a w a n d fa c ts re l e v a n t to p l a u s i b l e o p ti o n s“ a re v i rtu a l l yu n c h a l l e n g e a b l e .” 12 O n a p p e a l, a n a p p e lla n th a st h e b u r d e n o fp r o v in g h isin e f f e c t iv e -a s s is t a n c e c la im by a p r epon der ance ofthe evi dence. 13 W e pr es um e t hat cou ns el ’ s ac t i onsan d dec i si onsw er e r ea so nab l y m ot i vat ed by s ound st r at egy . 14Appel l antha s t he bur den t o r ebut t hi s pr esum pt i on bypr esenti ng evi dence i l l ust r at i ng w hy t r i al cou ns el di d w ha th e d i d. 15T h i sb u rd e n g e n e ra l l yc a n n o t b e m e t i f th e re c o rd d o e s n o t sp e c i fi c a l l yad d res s th e rea so n s fo r t ri a l co u n se l ’s co n d u c t. 16 A bsenta pr operevi denti ary r ecor d, i ti s ext r em el y di f f i cul tt o show t hat a tr i a l co u n se l ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e fi c i e n t. 17Ifc o u n s e l’s re a s o n sf o rh is con duc tdo n otap pea ri n t he r ec or d a nd t her e i s atl ea stt he pos si bi l i t y t hatt he c o n d u c t c o u l d h a v e b e e n l e g i ti m a te tri a l s tra te g y , th e n th e re v i e w i n g c o u rt18 ... Murph yv. S tate , 1 1 2 S . W . 3 d 5 9 2 , 6 0 1 ( T ex . C r i m . A pp . 2 0 0 3 ),

cert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 9 4 0 (2 0 0 4 ).

19 ... See Str

i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t688– 89, 104 S. Ct . a t2065 .

8 shoul d def ert o t he coun sel ’ s dec i sion s and deny anyi nef f ect i ve assi st ance c l a i m. 18 I n t hi s ca se , ap pel l antdi d notf i l e a m ot i on f ora new t r i al , an d c o n s e q u e n tl y , th e re w a s n o h e a ri n g to d e v e l o p o r c ri ti c i z e tri a l c o u n s e l ’s st r at egy. A f t err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e can n o t s a ythat i tshow s t hatt r i al cou ns el ’ s con duc tf el l be l ow t he st and ar d s etby Str i ckl and . 19T h e r e f o r e , we o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s s e c o n d p o i n t. I n hi s t hi r d a nd f i nalpoi nt , ap pel l antco m pl ai nsof t he t r i alco urt ’ s al l ow i ng th e S ta te t o in te rj e c t u n s w o rn t e s ti m o n yb yre fe rri n g to th e c o n te n ts o f T o n y a ’s pho ne r ecor ds, w hi ch w er e notadm i t t ed i n evi dence. The f ol l ow i ng t r ans pi r ed d ur i ng t he St at e’ s cr os s exa m i nat i on of a p p e l l a n t: Q . O ka y. S o w oul d i ts ur pr i seyou t o k now t hati n t he phone r ecor ds t hatw e gotf r om To nya she cal l ed you over40 t i m es aft er sh e ca l l e d 9 1 1 ? T h a t w o u l d sh o c ky o u , ri g h t? A . N o. Q . Thatw oul dn’ ts hoc k y ou? A . N o, be ca us e s he di dn’ tca l l m e b ec aus e I w as n’ ti n Fo rtW ort h.20 ... T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 ; Luna v. S tate , 2 6 8 S. W . 3d 594, 604 ( Tex.

C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), petiti on f or cert. f i led, - - -U. S. L . W . - - -( U. S. J a n. 27, 2009 ) (N o . 0 8 -1 0 1 4 4 ).

21 ... T e x . R . E v i d . 1 0 3 (a )(1 ); Lagrone v. S tate , 942 S. W . 2d 602, 618 (T e x . C r im . A p p .), cert. denied, 5 2 2 U .S . 9 1 7 (1 9 9 7 ); Po l kv. S tate , 729 S .W .2 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ).

22 ... Lagrone , 942 S. W . 2d a t618. 9 Q . O ka y. So t hatw oul d ha ve sh ock ed you t hen ? A . I ’ m n o t– – s a yi ta g a i n n o w. Q . W oul d yo u be su r pr i se d t hathe rphon e r ec or dsf r om Spr i nt show t hatshe cal l ed you over40 t i m es aft ershe cal l ed 9 11 , t hat day , aft eryou s t ol e h erm one y? M R . H A Y D E N : A t t h i s p o i n t I ’l l o b je c t to referri n g to evi dence t hat ’ s noti n t he r ecor d, Judg e. M S. W A G N ER: He ca n – – heca n s ay j us tno. TH E CO U RT: I t ’ s ove r r ul ed. He ca n a ns w erye s orno. TH E DEFEN D A N T: No. A t im e ly a n d s p e c if ic o bje c t io n is r e q u ir e d t o p r e s e rv e e r r o rf o ra p p e a l. 20 I n or dert o pr eserve a com pl ai ntf or our r evi ew , an obj ect i on m ustbe m ade as so o n a s th e b a sis for the o bj e c ti o n b e c o m e s a p p a ren t. 21 I f a d e fen d a n t f a i l s to obj ec tunt i l aft eran obj ec t i ona bl e q ues t i on ha s bee n as ke d a nd a ns w er ed, an d he ca n s how no l egi t i m at e r ea so n t o j us t i f y t he del ay, hi s obj ec t i on i s unt i m el y, and an y c l ai m ofer r ori s f or f ei t ed. 2223 ... See L una , 268 S. W . 3d a t604. 10 The a boveport i on oft he r ec or d s how s t hatap pel l antan sw er ed t he St at e’ s que st i on, w hi ch w as su bs t ant i al l y i den t i ca l t o t he que st i on c om pl ai ned
ofon a ppe al , t he pr os ec ut orask ed anot herone , ap pel l antan sw er ed i t , an d t he st at e r epe at ed t he com pl ai ned
- ofque st i on be f or e a ppel l an tobj ec t ed. A p p e l l a n t'so bj e c ti o n w a su n ti m e l yb e c a u s e i t w a sm a d e a fte r a s u b s ta n ti a l ly i den t i ca l que st i on w asas ke d a nd a ns w er ed. 23W e hol d, t her ef o re, t hat a p p e lla n t ’s o bje c t io n w a s u n t im e ly a n d c o n s e q u e n t ly f a ile d t o p r e s e r v e h is c o m p l a i n t f o r r e v i e w , a n d w e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s th i rd p o i n t. H a v i ng ov err ul ed al l of app el l an t ’ s po i nts, w e aff i r m t he t r i al co u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; G A RD N ER and W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t27, 2009