### NUM BER 13-07- 0052 7-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
SA M UELR ENE GA RC IA , 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 93 rd D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d G arza

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Samuel R ene Garci a, w as conv icted of murder , a firs t- deg re e felony , and
w as sent enced to forty -fiv e y ears i n pr is on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02( b) (1 ) (Verno n 20 03). By six issues, Garcia argues on appe al tha t: (1) the evidence was leg ally and factu ally

insuf f icient to supp ort the jury ’s v erdict; ( 2) the trial court erred in denying his moti on for mis tr ial ; (3) the tr ial courterred in admitt ing a v ide o reco rd ing and photog ra phs of the c ri me sc ene; (4 ) the t ri al cour t er re d i n deny ing h is m o ti on to remov e a j uror for alleged m iscond uct; (5) he receiv ed inef fective assistan ce of

coun sel; an d (6) the trial court
er re d i n admi tti ng i nto e v ide nce a pr ior j udg ment of co nv icti on bec ause the Stat e di d notGi l b e r t o Ch a v e r o , a n a r s o n i n v e s t i g a t o r , t e st i f i ed a s a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s i n a r s o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n
. H e 1 op i ne d t ha t t he fi re i n t he cl os et w as start ed by a m atch or a l i gh t er. 2 prov ide reason abl e notic e purs uant to t he Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t. 3 7. 07 , § 3( g ) ( Ve r no n Su pp
. 20 09 )

. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND On O ct o b e r 12, 2 005, Gabr iel a D e Leon w as found strang led and bur ned i n her apa rtme nt. Garcia was subsequen tly indicted for h er m urde r. The indictm entalleged, in four parag ra phs, that Garci a i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

ca used the d eath of De L eon by (1 ) strang li ng her

w it h a cabl e, (2) strang li ng her w it h his hand, (3 ) str ik ing her w it h hi s h and or (4) stri king her w ith an unkn own object. Garcia a d m it t e d t o be ing i n De Leo n’s apa rtme nt on the night of her dea th, b ut alleged thatshe w a s dea d up on h is arri v al. He cl aimed he panic ked becau se, for s ome unex pla ine d reason , he knew thathi s fin g er pr int s
w oul d be found on her

body

. For that re ason, he pi ck ed up the b ody , puti t i n the bedroom closet a nd se t the b ody a nd the co nte nts of t he closet on f ire. He the n too k the keys to De Leon’ s c ar

and drov e i t t o a va ca n t l ot i n M is si on, Tex as, w here i t w as lat er found abandoned

. Garci a’s theo ry w as that someone els e c ommitt ed th e murder . The cas e w as tried to a jury , and Garcia w as foun d guilty of murd er and sente nced to f orty- f iv e y ears’ impr is onment i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. G a rc ia t h e n f il e d a m o t io n fo r n e w tr ia l a ll e gi n g t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l p ro vid e d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e; t he tr ial co urt den ied the moti on. This appeal foll ow ed. II. T H E E V I DE NCE A
. Emer gency

Pers onnel and Polic e Testimony Vi cent e Abr ig o, a li eutenan t w it h the M cAl len F ire D epar tment, tes ti fied th a t he
re spond ed to a fire al ar m at a n apar tment compl ex

i n M cAl len , Tex as, at 12:14 p.m. o n Oct ober 12, 2005. Li eutenan t Ab ri g o disc ov ered De Leon’s dead and burntbodyin one of the c los ets of

the apar tment. Ar mando Her nandez , a cr ime sc ene i nv est ig ator w it h the 1 McAl len Pol ic e D epar

tment, took

phot og ra phs of the s cene and of D e Leon’s body . TheM ar i o Ar r at i a, a cr i m e scen e assi st ant f or t he M cAl l en Pol i ce Depar t m ent , al so assi s t ed i n t he 2 rem ova l of G arc i a’ s cl othe s
. Arrati a t es t i fi ed t ha t G arc i a wa s very c om ba t i ve an d r efu s ed t o vo l un t ari l y rem ove hi s cl ot hes. 3 photog ra phs w ere ent ered i nto evide n ce. In v est ig ator H er nandezobs er

v ed “ some ty pe of eithe r cable cord or som e kind of v ideo g am e cord” w rapp ed a ro u n d D e L eon ’s neck several times. He also no ticed: a bro k e n a rt if icial nail on the index finger of De Leon ’s ri g ht ha nd; s w ell ing on t he ri ght si de of her face and r ig ht ey e, as i f she had been
ass aul ted; abrasi ons on to p of her head; and blo od c oming out of the s ide of her mouth. Investigat or Hernan dez assisted in collect ing scrapin gs f rom u nde rnea th th e v ictim’s fing er nai ls

. He tes ti fied th at t here w as no forc ed ent ry i nto t he apar

tm e n t a n d t h at t he int er ior of the a par

tment w as cov ered w it h s oot. After Garci a w as apprehended, Inv est ig ator Her nandezsa w

“ w hat a ppeared to be staine d bloo d on [Garcia’s] pan ts and o n his shirt[,]

. . . scratch ma rks on h is fa ce, scratch
ma rks on the b ack of

t he neck and u nde rnea th his lip” an d “som e blee ding or some small lac erati ons to t he ti p of hi s fing ers.” Her nandezas si ste d i n remov ing Garci a’s cl othes by usi ng “ press ure poi nt, mini mum force w hic h y ou c an use to ha v e the su spect or D efendant
com ply w ith y our orde r.” A li ghter w as foun d hi d den in Garcia’s butto cks. Th e of f icers 2
re cov ered $13. 77 from G arci a ’s left front pock et an d $60. 10 from h is r ig ht fro nt po ck et. His w allet w a s e mp ty. Garcia’s entire left han d an d tw o f ingers on his rig ht ha nd were
sw abbed. Inv est ig ator

H er nandeztes ti fied that Eri k Mont emay or Gonz ale zw as als o a p erson of i nterest in De Leon’ s murde r. An oral sw ab w as tak en from G onz ale z , butInv est ig ator Her nandezdi d notrecommend submi tti ng the sw ab for compar is on and anal y sis to t he T e xa s De p a rt m e n to f

P u b li cS a fe t y la b o ra t o ry. Her ibe rt o Vi g il , a cr ime sc ene i nv est ig ator w it h the M cAl len Pol ic e D epar tment, tes ti fied th at w hen he ar ri v ed atthe sc ene of the cr ime, D e Leon’ s b ody w as outs ide of the apar tment on an ambula nce stretc her

. At that ti me, he preser v ed th e body

and condu cte dAdel i t a Br i al es t est i f i ed t hat she r ecei v ed t wo cal l s on h er cel l pho ne a t app r oxi m at el y 3: 00 a

. m
. on 3 O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e c a lle r s o u n d e d lik e a yo u n g m a n w ith a “ th ic k , lik e a r o u g h k in d o f v o ic e .” B r ia le s to ld t he ca l l er bot h t i m es t hat h e ha d t he w r ong num ber

. She coul d no t r ecal l t he n am e of t he p er son t hat t he cal l er was aski ng f or
. T i bur ci o I sl as Jr

. t est i f i ed t hat he r ecei v ed a “ pr i v at e” cal l on hi s cel l p hone at a p p r o x im a te ly 3 :0 0 a .m . o n O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , b u t t h a t h e d id n o t a n s w e r th e c a ll. 4 f ingernail scrapings and f ingerprinting. He observed an X-Box v ideo g am e cord tightly
w rapp ed a roun d De Leo n’s neck ab outfour tim es. Ren e H e rnandez , a detecti v e w it h the M cAl len Pol ic e D epar tment, w as the l ead inv est ig ator on the cas e. He ar ri v ed at t he s cene at ap prox imat ely 1:00 p.m. and obs er

v ed De Leo n’s bod y

on the stretch er. Detective Hernand ez not ed th at De Le on was partially bur ned, her

face w as sw oll en, t here w as blo od around he r face, and a fing er nai l w as broken. There w as no s ig n of force d ent ry i nto t he apar

tment. D etecti v e H er nandezl ater
m e twit h G a rc ia a tt h e p o li c e st a t io n
. W h il e G a rc ia wa s st il l f u l l y cl o t h e d , De t e c t ive Her nandezobs er

v ed s cratc hes on Ga rc ia’ s face and nec k a re a, bl ood on his pant s a nd hands , and noti ced that he s mell ed of smoke. De tecti v e H er nandezal so int er v iew ed Gonz ale z , w ho c ame i n to the sta ti on of his ow n v oli ti on. Gonz ale zw as coope ra ti v e and per mitt ed th e det ect iv e to loo k for sc ra tch es; none w ere found. Ma r i o C av az os , a de te c ti v e w i th th e M cAl l en Po l i c e D ep ar tm en t, te s ti fi ed th at De Leon’ s v ehi cl e w as loc ated in a v acantl ot ne ar the Ci marron g olf c ourse in Mi ss ion

. After bein g assigned to locate Garcia, D e t e c t ive Cav azos interv iew ed Ja nell Garcia, Ga rcia’s
w ife, w ho adv is ed hi m thatGarci a w as at a nearby W al- Ma rt

. W hen D etecti v e C av az os ar ri v ed atthe W al- Ma rt , he saw Garci a p a cin g i n f ront of the sto re
. Det ect iv e C av az os app rehe nde d Garcia an d imm edia tely sme lled smo ke on his p e rs o n
. He saw smoke residue aroun d Garcia’s ea rs and ne ck and scratches o n his face a nd n eck. Inv est ig ator

D av id Ra m o s o f

the McAl len Pol ic e D epar tment tes ti fied th at he w as ass ig ned t o c ontact and ca nv as the a re a for w it ness es. As par

t of hi s d uti es, Inv est ig ator Ramos obta ine d D e Leon’ s c ell phone re cords. The records re v eal ed out g oin g ca ll s t o a “Mr . Islas” at 3:0 6 a.m ., and tw o calls t o a “Mrs. Briales” a t 3:0 8 a.m

. Prior to th at, th ere 35

w ere s ix i ncomi ng ca ll s from D e Leon’ s s is ter , C lau dia

. T h e re w ere no cal ls made after 3: 08 a .m
. B. Claudia De Leon Claudia De Leon is the v ictim’s olde r sister. She had w orked until app rox ima tely 2:00 a.m. t hat d ay

and came t o D e L eon’ s a par tment around 2: 25 a. m. At t hat t ime, Garcia w as in the restroom . Accord in g t o C la u dia, Ga rcia open ed th e restroo m do or, looke d ou t, d id n ’t s ay anything, and then returne d to th e restroo m. W hile Garcia w as in the rest ro om, C lau dia and De Leon tal ked about how C lau dia had jus t bee n pai d $200 at
w or k. D e Leon menti oned t hat she had approx imat ely $100 in cas h tha t s he w as sav ing up t o pa y

h er e l ectr i cb i l l

. Abou t ten m inutes l at er , Ga rc i a c am e ou t of t he res troo m. Cla udia state d tha t she spo ke w ith Garcia an d ob serv ed h is fa ce—she notice d a pim ple on hi s nose but did not see any sc ra tch es or st ain s o n hi s c lot hes. C lau dia and De Leon lef t the apa rtme nt arou nd 2 :40 a.m . to go to a ne arby conv enie nce sto re. At tha t poin t, De Leo n told Garcia to leave. How ever, as sh e drove a w ay f rom the p arking lot w ith her sister, Cl a u d ia d id n o tse e G a rc ia wa lk in g o r d ri vin g a wa y. Later that day , C lau dia ’s mother recei v ed a cal l from pol ic e as ki ng for D e Leon becau se her

ca r had bee n l ocat ed in Mi ss ion

. Beca use De Leon w as not a nsw er ing her
ce ll phone, Cl audi a dec ide d to g o to her apar tment. C lau dia ar ri v ed atthe apar tment
arou nd 1 1: 00 a .m
. to fi nd t he d oo r u nlocked. W he n s he o pe ne d th e do or , s mo k e c am e out . She sou ght help f rom a neighbo r. Claudia w as aske d to review the ph oto graph s of

Garcia tha t w ere take n at the police sta ti on. She t est ified thatthe sc ra tch mar ks on G arci a’s face and nec k w ere notpresent
w hen s he s aw

hi m at t he apar

tment in the e ar ly

hours o f that morn ing . She al so tes ti fied that De Leon w as w ear ing ear ri ng s and that her f ing er nai ls w ere i ntact w hen s he l astsa w h e r al ive t h a t m o rn in g. C. Jane ll Garc ia Janel l w as marr ied to Garci a from 1995 to 2006. She and her ch il dren w ere l iv ing6

w it h her mother in 2005. Al thoug h the y w ere s eparated, sh e and Garci a tal ked ev er y othe r day

. Janel l w as employ ed as a detent ion off ic er w it h the M cAl len Pol ic e D epar tment and used the on ly

car that she and G arcia owned. Jane ll testif ied th at Ga rcia did nothave his
o wn ca r o r h is o wn p la c e t o st a y. On O cto ber

11, 2005, Janel l re cei v ed a cal l from Garci a around 7: 15 a. m., as ki ng he r t o pi c kh i m u p an d ta k e hi m t o a W al- M ar t “ be c au s e he w as e x pe c ti ng t o g ets om e money from hi s s is ter

at the mone y

g ra m there at W al- Ma rt .” J anel l co m p lie d . W hen Garci a c ame out of the W al- Ma rt , he sai d the money he w as ex pect ing had not b een s ent, and he sta ted that he needed money to re nt a hotel ro om. Janel l next t ook Garci a to an apar tment compl ex

to see someone that suppo sedl y ow ed Ga rc ia ten d oll ars; but t hat p e rs o n wa s n o th o m e
. Ja n e ll t h e n wit h d re w si xt y d o ll a rs f ro m a n AT M, ga ve G a rc ia fo rt yfiv e dol lars, and droppe d him of f at a different apar

tment compl ex
. Late r that afternoo n, s he p i c k ed h i m u p ag ai n an d th ey w en t to t he i r

s on ’ s foo tb al l g am e. W hen t he g am e ended a ro und 7:45 p.m., Garc ia ask ed Janel l to take him to the M cAl len Pol ic e D epar tment
s o he co ul d tu r n hi ms el f i n for so me out s ta nd i ng ti c k et s , t hi nk i ng h e c ou l d “ do s om e ti me there” si nce he di dn’ t hav e a p lac e to sta y
. Ja nel l compl ied w it h hi s req uest

. Garci a c all ed again at aro und 1 0:0 0 p.m
. and a sked Jane ll to p ick h im up a t a Burger King and drop him of f at the Mint Cl ub where he worked as a bou ncer. On O cto ber

12, 2005, at ap prox imat ely 4:00 p.m., Garci a c all ed J anel l ask ing her to pi ck hi m up atthe W al- Ma rtof f of Shar y Road in Mi ss ion

. By

that time, inv est ig ators h ad adv is ed J anel l that they we re l o o kin g for her

hus band. Ja nel l tol d the i nv est ig ators t he loc ati on from w here Garci a had cal led

. The next day , G arci a c all ed J anel l as he w as bei ng transpo rt ed to the county j ail

. He tol d her not to let the kids w atc h the news a nd as ked her to c all hi s a ttor ney
. She t est ified hi s v oic e w as nor mal and t hat h e di d notso und wor ri ed, nervous, or em otion al. D. Fo ren sic E v id ence J os e Z un i g a, a foren s i csc i en ti s t w i th the Tex as D ep ar tm en t of P ub l i cS afe ty

C r i me7

Laborator

y , w as ask ed to sc re en to othpi ck s w it h fing er nai l sc ra pin g s t aken from D e Leon and to perform a f iber com parison , if nece ssary . According to Zunig a , “ f ib ers thatw ere re cov ered from the f ing er nai l sc ra pin g s can be ex cl uded as hav ing ori g ina ted f ro m the blu e Pol o s hir t and the Ol d N avy

j eans” thatGarci a w as w ear ing on t he ni g ht i n q uest ion

. Cr y sta l Anderson, a forensi c s ci enti st w it h the serolo g y DN A secti on of t he Tex as Dep artment of Publ icSafety Cri me Laborato ry , testi fied that she proc ess es ev ide nce for the presenc e of bo dy fluid s and then dev elo ps DN A profile s from any st ain s t hat a re found. In th is case, An derso n examine d the toot hpicks w ith s c ra p ings taken f rom De Le on’s f ingernails, som e socks, Ga rcia’s shirt, jeans, an d bo o t s , and Garcia’s han d sw abs. Anderson found blo od s tai ns in one s ock ; no bl ood on the boots ; s ev eral apparent b loo d sta ins on t h e b lu e s h ir

t and bl ue j eans w or n by Garci a; an d apparent b loo d on the h and
sw abs. A n derso n con duct ed DNA an alysi s on the toot hpicks w ith De Leo n’s f ingernail scrapings. Garcia w as excluded from bot h the rig ht-ha nd and left -han d f in ge rn ail
sc ra pin g s. The fing er nai l sc ra pin g s from De Leon’ s ri g ht hand w ere cons iste n t with her
ow n D NA

. Th e f in ger nai l sc ra pin g s from D e Leon’ s l eft hand w ere c onsi ste nt w it h a mixture of her

D NA and that of an unknow n indi v idu al. The hand s w abs from Garci a’s r ig ht and lef t han d w ere con sistentw ith his own D NA. A stain f rom th e shou lder area of the shirt Garcia w as w earing w as con sistentw ith a m ixture of DNA f rom Garcia an d De Leo n. De Leo n w as excluded f rom a stain locat ed o n an oth er area of the shirt. Of

the th ree socks tha t w ere test ed, app aren t bloo d w as de tecte d on tw o of the socks; on tho se tw o socks, the DNA prof ile develope d f rom a ll fo u r s t a in s we re consiste nt w ith De Leo n. T he DNA profile obta ine d from a sta in from the fronthi p area of Garci a’s j eans w as cons is tent w it h a mixture of

DNA from Garcia, De Leo n, an d an unkn own i ndividual. Ful g encio Sa lin as, M .D ., a pat hol og is t, per formed an autops y

on D e Leon on Oct ober 12, 2005. Dr. Sali nas ex amined D e Leon’ s b ody and obser

v ed: abrasi ons on th e front porti o n o f

her fore head; sw oll en ey eli ds; a he morr hag e or co ng est ion al ong her8

eyelids; areas of hem orrhaging arou nd th e con junctiva, or inside w hite o f the eyes, w hich is us ual ly

ca used by

as phyx ia or

irr it ati on; a cord w ra pped around he r neck three or four ti mes, caus ing compres si on around the neck area; and extens iv e burns on h er body

. An int er nal ex aminat ion of De Leon’ s h ead s how ed s ev eral hematomas , w hic h, ac cordin g to D r
. Sa l i na s , i s a c ol l ecti on of bl oo d th at oc c urs i n th e s oft ti s s ue s an d i s c au s ed b y s om e type of blunttraum a. Hem ato ma s w ere also foun d on the inside of both lips. De Leon ’s brain sh ow ed a diffuse s ubarachno id hemor rh ag e, w hic h i s c aused by trauma or

i nju ry to that area. W hen D r. Sal ina s opened up her l ar y nx , no sootw as present , w hic h s ug g est ed tha t De Leo n w as no t aliv e du ring the f ire. The re w ere no f ra c t u res in the th roat. Dr

. Salina s opine d tha t “De Leon di e d a s a r e s u lt of asph yx ia by strangulat ion an d mu ltiple head t ra uma thatl ed to the diffuse s ubarachno id hemor rh ag e head trauma and cerebral edema.” I n thi s c ase, he t est ified , i t w as the cord that w as w ra pped around he r neck that
re sul ted in the asphy

x ia. A s econd pos si ble ca use of death, acc ordin g to Dr . Sa li nas, w as mult ipl e head trauma. The fire di d notca use De Leon’ s d eath. E. A lex A lv arez Alex Al v arez , an off ic er

w it h the M cAl len Pol ic e D epar tment, st ated that he transpo rt ed Ga rc ia from the pol ic e depar tment to the Hi dal g o Cou nty Ja il on O cto ber

14, 2005. At som e p o in t, Garci a as ked to us e Officer Al v arez ’s ce ll phone to c all hi s w ife. Of f icer Alv arez dialed the num ber an d h e ld u p the pho ne for Garcia to ta lk. W hile speak ing on t he phon e, G arci a w as cr y ing and say ing he w as sor ry
. He w as ask ing her to go on w it h her l ife. He ask ed her to f ind som eon e tha t w ould g iv e he r anything tha t she wi shed for. He said that he w as sor ry

and that he w oul d rather put a bull et in his head ins tead of g oin g to jai l. He re ferred to thi s ex per ien ce as may be i t w as a s ig n from G od b e ca u se he w a s t ire d of livin g th e kin d of

life he w a s livin g. Accordin g to Of

f icer A lv arez, Ga rcia th en said, “I’m sorry , Bab y , butthey said I kill ed th is gir l and I sw ear I didn ’t.” Af ter Garcia en ded the te leph one conversation, he be cam e v ery em otion al and began cry ing. Off icer Alv arez testif ied th at Ga rcia beg an by

sa y ing , “ I pan ic ked. I p ani ck ed.” H e w as cr y ing , and he k eptIn h i s b rie f o n a p p e a l , G a rc i a s ta te s a s p a rt o f h i s fi rs t i s s u e th a t “th e re w a s i n s u ff i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to 4 subm i t par agr aph t wo, st r angl i ng t he v i ct i m wi t h hi s han d, as a po t ent i al m annerand m eans ofcausi ng t he de ath of t he vi c t i m
. ” H ow eve r, G arc i a pro vi de s n o arg um en t o r c i t ati on to a utho ri t y o r t o t he re c ord i n s up po rt o fth is b a r e s ta te m e n t. A c c o r d in g ly, to th e e x te n t th a t G a r c ia in te n d e d to r a is e th is a s a n is s u e o n a p p e a l, it i s w a i v e d

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38

. 1(i ). 9 say ing he p anicked. And he sa id he w ent i nsi de th e hous e, s aw her dead and he pani ck ed. So he jus t pi ck ed her up, threw her in the c los et an d l ither up. As he’s say ing this, he’s cry ing. . . . He kept sa y ing that, you know, “ I k n e w t h e ywe re go in g t o f in d m y f in ge rp ri n t s o n h e r b o d y. So , t h a t ’s wh y I put h er i n the cl osetand bur ned her .”

. . . . He sai d t h a t h e k n e w

thatthey

w ere g oin g to find her bl ood on his cl othes and s o tha t’ s w hy

the inv est ig ators h ad k ept them. . . . H e s aid he h ad ta ken the car—the ca r key s f rom th e tab le and d riv en the ca r to t he Cimarron [sic] w here he lef

t it and th en b egan to w alk. On cross-examina tion, A lv arez acknowl edged that , w hile Garcia did adm it to burn ing D e Leo n’s bod y , he did not ad mit to kill ing her. III
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Ev id ent iary

Su ff icien cy By his f irst issue, Garcia argues tha t the evidence at trial w as legally and factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on. Sp eci fical ly , G arci a argue s the e v ide nce w as (1 ) 4 factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s how

he w as th e p e rson t hat c aused the death of the v icti m, and (2 ) leg all y

and factual ly

i nsuffici ent a s t o the ca use of death. In cond ucting a legal suf f iciency rev iew , w e con sider the ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the v erdict to determi ne w hether anyrati onal tri er

of fact c oul d hav e found the
ess enti al ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Sander s v. State , 119 S.W .3d 818, 820 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2003)

. W e mustg iv e defere nce to “ the respon si bil ity of the t ri er of factto fair ly

resol v e c onfli cts i n tes ti mony , t o w eig h the ev ide nce, and to draw reaso nab le inferen ces f rom basic facts to ultim ate facts.” Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 8

- 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) )

. W e are no t required to det ermin e w het her w e believe tha t the evidence at trial establishe d guilt beyond a reason a b le dou bt; rath er, w hen faced w ith con f licting evidence, w e mu st10

p re s u m e t h a tt h e t ri e r o f fa c tre s o lve d a n y su c h co n f li c tin fa vo r of t h e p ro s e c u t io n , a n d we must defer to that resol uti on. Sta te v. T urro , 867 S.W .2d 43, 47 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93). In c onducti ng a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew , w e c onsi der

t h e e vide nce in a neut ra l li g ht. W ats on v. St

ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6). Th e v erdict w ill be s et as ide onl y

i f (1) i t i s s o c ontrar

y to the o v er

w hel ming w eig ht of th e ev ide nce as to be c lea rly wro ng and manifest ly unj ust , or

( 2) i t i s a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. at41 5 (cit in g Johns on v . St ate , 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 , 1 0 (T e x. Crim. App . 200 0)). T h e S t a t e is n o tre qu ir e d t o p re s e n td ir e c t e vid e n c e , s u c h a s e ye wit n e s s t e s t im o n y, to es tabl is h g uil t. See G uevar a v . St ate, 152 S.W .3 d 4 5 , 49 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 4). “Circum stan tial evi den ce is as proba tiv e as direct evidence in estab lishing g uilt of t he a ctor, and circumsta ntial evidence alone can be suf f icient to esta blish guilt.” Hooper , 214 S. W .3d at 13 ; see Gu evara , 15 2 S .W .3d a t 49. The l aw does not re q uire tha t eac h fact “p oin t direct ly and ind ependent ly

to the g uil t of t he appel lan t, as lon g as the cumul ati v e effectof all the incrimin ating facts is suf f icient to supp ort the conviction.” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d a t 13; see Gu evara , 152 S.W .3d a t 49. Both leg al and fact ual su ff ic ien cy are meas ured by

the ele ments of the offense as defined by a hy pothet ic all y cor re ct jur y charg e. Ma li

k v . St ate , 9 5 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997) ; Adi

v. Sta te , 94 S.W .3d 124, 131 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.
re f’d)

. Und er

a hy pothet ic all y

correctj ur

y ch arg e, G arci a c ommitt ed th e offense of murder if he (1 ) int enti onal ly or know ing ly (2 ) caus ed De Leon’ s death. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19 .02 (b)(1). A perso n acts i nte ntion ally w ith respe ct to a result o f his condu ct w hen it is his co nsc iou s o bje cti v e to caus e the resul t. Id. § 6. 03( a) ( Ver non 200 3)

. A person act s knowingl y

w ith respe ct to a result o f his condu ct w hen he is aw are tha t his cond uct is
re asona bly

ce rt ain to caus e the resul t. Id. § 6. 03( b) . I ntentmay “ be i nferred from ci rc umstan ti al ev ide nce[ ,] suc h as acts, w ord s, a n d the condu ct of the appe ll ant.” G u e v a r a , 152 S. W .3d a t 50; see als o Har t v . St ate , 89 S.W .3d 6 1, 64 ( Tex . C ri m. App.11

200 2) (stating tha t a fact-f inde r ma y infer both knowl edge an d inte nt f rom th e de fend ant ’s acts, words, or condu ct and f rom th e na ture of the wounds inf licte d o n t he victim); Ledes m a v. State , 677 S.W .2d 529, 531 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1984) ( noti ng thatthe re q uis it e culpa ble m ent al state may be inferred f rom th e surroun ding circumsta nces). 1. Factual Sufficiency of Ev idence that Garc ia Cause d De Leon’s Death Garci a c lai ms t he ev ide nce is su ff icie n t onl y to show thathe w as presentat the
sc ene of the murde r. To thi s end, he admits that he w as present , butcl aims thatD e Leon
w as dead up on hi s a rr iv al. H e cl aims he pani ck ed and li t the body and the a par

tment on fire to dest ro y

ev ide nce of his fing erp rin ts

. Garci a arg ues there i s n o c ontrov erti ng ev ide nce. Addi t i o n a l l y , G a rc i a a rg u e s t h a tt h e fa c tt h a tD e L e o n ’ s D N Aw a s o n h i s c l o thi ng est abl is hes onl y

thathe had cont act w it h her at s ome poi nt i n ti me; s omethi ng to w hic h he admit s. Furt her , Garc ia notes thatD r. Sal ina s w as not a ble to say w hen D e Leon die d and
w het her Garcia was around her at the t ime o f d eat h. G arcia argues tha t, throu gh crossexamina tion o f

the of f icers, he esta blished thatthe scratch es an d red m arks on his face and nec k c oul d hav e been caus ed by the pol ic e off ic ers w hen t hey w ere forc ibl y

remov ing his clothe s. Finally , Gar c ia a rg u e s , “the prop osition thatthe victim caused the scratch mark s o n the D efendant w as not plaus ibl e because the Stat e’s ex per ts conc lud ed th at t he DN A found unde r the v icti m’s fing er nai ls w ere from an unk now n i ndi v idu al. ” W hil e the re i s n o ev ide nce to controv ert Garc ia’ s c lai m thatD e Leon w as dead w hen h e a rr ive d a tt h e a p a rt m e n t , t h e ju ry wa s f re e t o d e t e rm in e t h e cr e d ib il it y o f G a rc ia ’s st o ry. It is the jur

y ’s sol e re spons ibi li ty to j udg e the credi bil ity of w it ness es, and the j ur y i s free to bel iev e or

di sbel iev e anyporti on of a w it ness ’s tes ti mony
. Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 4 04, 408- 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; Or tega v. State , 207 S.W .3d 9 11, 9 20 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no pet.)

. In addi ti on to G arci a’s cl aim, the jur y al so heard C lau dia ’s tes ti mony that Garci a w as presentat the a par tment a s hor

t t ime before De L e o n r e turned t o her apar tment at ap prox imat ely

3:00 a.m. The j ur

y heard tes ti mony that cal ls w ere made from12

De Leon’ s c ell phone by a mal e at 3:06 and 3: 08 a. m. They l ear ned t hat G arci a had been desp erate ly

looking fo r mon ey ea rlier tha t day becau se he had no place to stay. C laud ia tes ti fied th at s he and her si ste r w e re tal ki ng aboutmoney thatD e Leon had i n the ap ar tm en t w hi l e Ga rc i a w as i n th e res troo m. The fact t hat D e Leon’ s D NA w as found on Ga rc ia’ s c lot hin g i s e q ual ly probati v e of his mu rdering her as it is to his claim thathe simp ly mad e cont act w ith he r. The jury could hav e bel iev ed that the blo od of D e Leon, found on G arci a’s sh ir t and pant s, re sul ted from the p ro ces s o f him k il li ng her rather than from hi m mere ly

pi ck ing her

up a nd putti ng her in the c los et. D r. Sal ina s t est ified there w as no s oot i n De Leon’ s t hroat, w hic h i ndi cat ed that she die d pr ior

to the fire. The jur

y could hav e beli ev ed that Garc ia ki ll ed her first, by strang li ng her

w it h the X -B ox

co rd , and thathe t hen pl aced her in the cl osetbefore setti ng her bo d y a n d t h e othe r cont ents of the c los et on fire. This w oul d be cons is tent w it h the testim ony of

Dr. Salina s. Althou gh Garcia esta blished tha t the scratches a nd red marks on hi s face and nec k may hav e been caus ed by the off ic ers a s h is cl othes w ere bei ng forci bly remov ed, t he j ur

y al so heard the tes ti mony of D etecti v e H er nandez , w ho s aw the
sc ra tch mar ks pr ior

to Garci a’s cl othes bei ng remov ed. Finally , Garcia asse rts that it is not “plau sibl e ” t h a tD e L eon cause d the scratch
ma rks on Garcia’s face a nd n eck, be cause Garcia’s DNA w as n o tf o u nd u nde rnea th De Leon’ s fin g er nails . How ev er , G arci a present ed no tes ti mony , ex per t or othe rw is e, ind ic ati ng thatthe lac k o f his DN A under De Leon’ s fing er nai ls conc lus iv ely es tabl is hed t hat the s cra tc h e s w ere notmade by D e Leon. W it hout suc h tes ti mony , t he j ur y w as free t o
w eig h the ev ide nce and resol v e any co nflict t herein

. See Cla yto n v . St ate , 235 S.W .3d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( “W h e n t h e re c o rd su p p o rt s co n f li c t in g i n fe re n c e s , we must presume that the fact[- ]f in d er resol v ed th e c onfli cts i n fav or of the p ro sec uti on and th e re fo re de fe r to th a t d e te rm in a ti o n .” ) (ci ti n g Jacks on , 443 U.S. at 32 6). Con si der ing al l of the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, w e canno t s ay thatthe v erdict w as cl ear ly w ro ng , mani festl y

u n ju st , or a g ain st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the13

ev ide nce. See Watson , 20 4 S. W .3 d at4 15

. Th erefo re, t he e v i de nc e w as factually suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s findi ng thatGarci a c aused the death of De L eon. 2. Legal a nd Factual Sufficie ncy of Ev idence of De Leon’s Caus e of Death Garc ia next arg ues th at th e test imo ny of Dr. Salina s regarding the cause of De Leo n’s dea th w as legally and factu ally insuf f icient to supp ort the g uilty v erdict. First, Garcia
cr it ic iz es Dr . Sa li nas for notst ati ng thatthe blu nt t ra uma he obser v ed on De Leon’ s b ody
w as “s ev ere.” H e furt her co mplai ns that Dr . Sa li nas did not tes ti fy as to an approx imat e ti me f ra m e duri ng w hic h thi s t ra uma oc cur re d. Garci a s tates that“ [t] he doctor fail ed to prov ide thi s e ss enti al infor mati on to the jur y w herein theyw oul d be able to make a rati onal deci si on bas ed on compet ent e v ide nce. ” Dr. Salinas test if ied tha t he obse rv ed several he ma tom as in the in terior of De Leo n’s hea d an d on the inside of both o f h e r li p s . Her brain showed a dif f use su bara chno id hemor rh ag e. W hil e D r. Sal ina s may not hav e us ed th e w ord “ sev ere ,” h e t e stified the hematomas and hemor rh ag e w ere caus ed by bl unt force trauma. Impl ic iti n thi s c oncl usi on is the noti on th at t he trauma w as sev ere enoug h to caus e the se hematomas and hemor rh ag e. As to the ti me frame, it is tr ue that Dr . Sa li nas did not tes ti fy as to w hen t he trauma may

hav e oc cur re d. Garcia a rg ues “t he trauma he obser v ed may hav e been
cause d on e w eek b efore the dea th of the victim f rom som e unre lated m atte r.” How ever, there w as no ev ide nce at t ri al to s uppor t t his co ntent ion

. Garcia f urthe r comp la in s t hatDr. Salina s w as un able to pinp oint th e time of De Leon’ s d eath and t hat h e “ v aci ll ate[d ]” reg ardin g the caus e of death. D r. Sal ina s o pin ed that “D e Leon di ed as a resul t of as phyx ia by st ra ng ula ti on and mult ipl e head trauma tha t led to the dif

f use su bara chno id hem orrhage he ad t ra u m a a nd ce rebral ed em a.” In this
cas e , he te sti fied, i t w as the c ord tha t w as w ra pped around he r neck thatresul ted i n the asphy x ia. A sec ond pos si ble cause of death, accordin g to Dr . Sali nas, w as multi ple head trauma. The ju ry

heard ev ide nce that De Leon w as ali v e at approx imat ely 3 :00 a .m. on Oct ober 12, 2005, and that she w as found dead at around noon of that day

. The ju ry

w as14

abl e to in fer that De Leon died w it hin that time f ra me. Garci a does not demonst ra te ho w the l ack of a preci se est imat e a s to t im e o f deat h renders t he opi nio n of Dr . Sa li nas in s u f f ic ie n to r i n c a p a b le o f

b e in g c o n s id e re d b y t h e ju ry. Fi nal ly, Garci a arg ues “D r. Sal ina s n ev er offered any

reason abl e medi cal
ex pla n a ti o n o f

how he w as abl e to ar ri v e at his opi nio ns. H e di d notoffer nor rev eal the und erly ing sci ent if ic or m edica l b ases for a rriv ing atsuch con clusions regarding the ca use of dea th.” In sup port of

this argumen t, Garcia no tab ly cites case l aw and rules of ev iden ce re g ardin g admi ss ibi li ty

of sc ien ti fic e v ide nce. Kel ly v. Sta te , 8 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1992) ; T EX
. R. E V ID
. 702

. T o the extent that Garcia is arguing tha t Dr. Salinas’s tes ti mony

w as ina dmis si ble , w e not e tha t an obj ect ion at tr ial i s re qui re d i n order to preser v e an appel lat e c omplai nt t hat e x per t t est imony

w as w ro ng ly

admi tted. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1. Garci a’s couns el did not obj ect to D r. Sal ina s b ein g ca ll ed as an e x per t i n the
area of forens icpath olo g y
. In fact , pr ior to the S tate offer ing D r. Sal ina s a s a n ex per t, Garcia’ s co u n se l ask ed to tak e hi m on v oir di re and ask

q uest ion s o f him. Upo n com pletio n of his question ing, defense coun sel said, “w e defer to the court

. ” G a rc ia ’s
couns el did not obj ect w hen t he St ate o ffered D r. Sal ina s a s a n ex per t or w hen D r. Sal ina s ex press ed hi s o pin ion s. Ac cordin g ly , t his co mplai nt i s n ot preser v ed for our

rev iew

. See id. W e conc lud e that the ev ide nce re g ardin g D e Leon’ s c ause of death w as leg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t. Garci a’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. Den ial of

M ot io n fo r M ist rial By his sec ond iss ue, G arci a c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r
w hen i t den ied hi s mot ion for mis tr ial after the Stat e eli ci ted tes ti mony of Garci a’s cr imi nal his tor y dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of the t ri al. G arci a c omplai ns spec ific all y of the followi ng testimo ny by Of f icer Cav azos: [Prosec utor

]: And atthatpoi nt, w ere y ou g iv en a par ti cul ar ass ig nment?15

[Of f icer Cavaz os]: Yes. W ell, w e learne d tha t the possib le suspe ct in this

cas e w as Mr . G arci a. And I wa s prov ide d w it h a mug shotpho to, a nd I was i nforme d b y fellow investig ato rs that— of his cr imi nal hi sto ry and— [D efense c ounse l] : Judg e, may w e approach? T h e Co u rt : Ye s , yo u m a y. At t his poi nt, a di sc uss ion w as held of f the rec ord. Thereafter , q uest ion ing by the S t a t e a n d c ro s s - e x a mi n a t i o n b y d e fe n s e c o u n s e l c o n t i n u e d a n d w a s c o mp l e t e d w i t h out any furth er referenc e to Garci a’s cr imi nal hi sto ry . The jur y w as ex cus ed. Defense co unsel t h e n a s k e d O f

f ic e r C a va zo s a b o u th is e a rl ie r t e s t im o n y re ga rd in g G a rc ia ’s cr im in a l h is t o ry. [D efense c ounse l] : W hat d id y ou mean to i mply by that ? [Officer Cav az os] : I di dn’ t m e a n t o i m p ly a n yth ing othe r than w e had a

bet ter und erstan ding of his characte r.

. . . . [D efense c ounse l] : So, y ou meantto impl y to the ladi es and g entl emen of the jury thaty ou h ad a bett er und erstan ding of his c h a ra c t e r b e c a u s e o f

h is cr im in a l h is t o ry? [Of f icer Cav azos]: Yes. [D efense couns el] : And w hat w as his charact er th a t you w e re trying to

im p ly? [Officer C av az os] : That he had bee n the su spect of a v iol ent c ri me. Of f icer Cav azos w as excused an d de fense coun sel mo v ed for mistri al. Defense couns el ack now le d ged th a t O f f ice r Ca vazos ’s o rigin a l a n swer w a s n o n -re sp o nsi v e and was notin ten tiona lly

elicited by the Sta te. None the less, he note d tha t Garcia’s criminal histo ry and t he s ug g est ion of a v iol ent nature w as made know n to the jur y
. Defense counsel then sta ted: I’ m somew hat i n a precar iou s posi ti on becau se I di dn’ t obj ectformal ly for t he record. A l th ou g h, I a pp roa c he d th e C ou rt— an d I do n’ t k no w i f ou r b en ch conference w as tak en or not. In that bench conference, I compl ain ed; a nd f ro m a sa fe gua rd in g sta n d p o in t, I d id n ’t o bje ct b e ca u se so m e ti m e s it br in gs mo re l igh t to t he i ss ue th at [ si c] if y ou don’ t obj ectand jus t app ro ach. Bu t nonethe les s, w e thi nk there’s i nformati on outt h ere tha t t he l adi es and g entl emen of the jur

y now hav e that thi s defendant somehow has a c ri minal16

history, and th at i s the reason they proceed ed to arrest him atthe W al-Mart in the mann er

thatthey

di d. The tr ial co urt den ied the moti on for mis tr ial

. On ap peal , c ounse l for Ga rc ia arg ues tha t Of f icer Cav azos v iolate d an agreed orde r in l imine wh ic h requested to exclude all evidence o f

extrane ous crime s or miscond uct. Garcia also argues thatOf f icer Cav azos’s tes ti mony

amounte d to ina dmis si ble ch aract er ev ide nce. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 404. Dur ing the hear ing on t he moti on for mis tr ial , O ff ic er Ca vaz os ack now led g ed th at prosec utors t old hi m not to t alk aboutGarci a’s v iol ent h is tor y i n frontof the j ur

y
. Off ic er Cavaz os explained his earlier testimo ny as follows: [Prose cuto r]: Okay. W e did ta lk that you c a n ’ttell the jury he h as a

v iol ent h is tor

y ; i s t hat r ig ht? [Officer C av az os] : Ri g ht. [Prosec utor

]: But the reason yo u a ll acted t he w ay thaty ou di d w as based on the informat ion that y ou had before y ou w ent ov er there; i s t hat c or re ct? [Of f icer Cav azos]: T hat ’s correct, sir. [Prosec utor

]: And s o, whe n yo u s ay y ou w ere tr

y ing to impl y

to the jur y w hat y ou k new

abouthi m, are y ou s ay ing thaty ou knew thi ng s o ther

—y ou k new

thi ng s a bout him o ther than his phot og rap h t hat c aused y ou al l to t ake the act ion s t hat y ou di d? [Of f icer Cav azos]: T hat ’s correct, sir. [Prosec utor

]: But y ou di dn’ t—y ou k new there w ere l imi ts on w hat y ou coul d s ay

i n frontof the j ur

y ; i s t hat r ig ht? [Of f icer Cav azos]: Yes, sir

. [Prosec utor

]: And w ere y ou tr y ing to tel l— I mean, w ere y ou tr y ing to put i n frontof the j ur

y that thi s man had bee n ar re ste d before? [Officer Cav az os] : No. Rea ll y , I w asn’ t. It was f o r ou r own sa fety , y ou

know , for us to be bette r aw are of w hat w e w ere deal ing w it h. [Prosec utor

]: Oka y
. That w as—y ou al l g a th e r thati nformati on to protect y oursel f and to pro tect t he publ icand ev er ythi ng li ke that—17

[ O f f ic e r C a va zo s ] : E xa c t ly. [Prosec utor

]: —i n maki ng the ar re st? [Of f icer Cav azos]: Yes, sir

. Garci a ac know led g es that his tr ial couns el did not obj ect at the ti me the tes ti mony
w as offered. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a)

. Nev erthel ess , he arg ues that an oppo si ng par ty has a duty

to compl y

w it h the order

i n l imi ne and to i nst ru ct the w it ness es to do the same. Hei del ber g v . St ate , 36 S.W .3d 6 68, 673 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 1, no pet. ). Cit in g Har

nett v. State , 38 S. W .3d 650 , 655 (Tex. App. –Au stin 20 00 , p e tref ’d.), Garcia notes thatnon- compl ian ce w it h an ord er i n l imi ne may

l ead t o c ontempt or

othe r sancti ons the t ri al cour

t d e e m s a p propr iat e. W hil e thi s p ro posi ti on i s a cc urate, w e not e tha t, ev en if there h as be en a v iolation of t he o rder in limine, it is still i ncum ben t upo n a pa rty to obje ct to t he admi ss ion or

ex cl usi on of ev ide nce in order to preser

v e er ro r for appeal. Id. Beca use Garci a di d not t im e lyobj ectto Off ic er C av az os’ s t est imony

reg ardin g hi s p ri or conv icti on, h e has not preser v ed th e i ss ue for our

rev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1 Garcia also co mp lains tha t the trial court shou ld have instructe d the jury to disregard the state me nt—o the rw ise, acco rding to Garcia , t h e jury may have considere d Garcia’s
cr imi nal hi sto ry

as ev ide nce ag ain st him. Onc e ag ain , how ev er , G arci a has not preser v ed h is c o m p laint for app eal. In o rder to prese rv e error, a defend antmustmake a time ly obj ect ion , and , i f the obj ect ion i s su st a in e d by the cour

t, the d efendant mus t req uesta curati v e jur

y inst ru cti on and must seek a mi str ial i f the c urati v e i nst ru cti on i s g iv en. Id. ; see Ne t h e r y v
. Sta te , 6 9 2 S .W .2d 6 86, 7 01 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) ; Dur an v . St ate , 505 S

. W

. 2 d 8 6 3 , 8 6 6 ( Te x
. C r i m. A p p
. 1 9 74) ; s e e a ls o Heide lberg , 36 S.W .3d a t 672 -7 3 ( “I f t h e o bje c t io n is su s t a in e d , t h e d e fe n d a n tm u s tm o ve t o st ri k e t h e e vid e n c e , t h a tis , t o h a ve it remo v ed f rom th e bod y of the evidence the j ury is allowed to con sider.”). Here, Garcia did not obj ectto the t est imony or as k for a c urati v e j ur

y i nst ru cti on to d is re g ard the all eg edl y i mprop er

tes ti mony
. Acc ordin g ly , G arci a fail ed to preser v e thi s c omplai nt for
re v iew

. W e ov er ru le Garci a’s se cond is sue.18

C. Admiss ibility

of Crime Sc ene Vi deotape and Photographs Du ring the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of tr ial , t he St ate o ffered i nto e v ide nce a v ide o re cordin g depi cti ng the cr ime sc ene as w ell as numerous photog ra phs of the v icti m. D ue to t he g ru esome nature of the ev ide nce, Garci a objec ted to th e admi ss ibi li ty of the
v ide otape and c ertai n phot og ra phs, cl aimi ng thatthe probati v e v alu e of the ev ide nce w as subs tanti all y

outw eig hed by

i ts preju dic ial effect

. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 403 . Th e trial court overruled the object ions. Garcia cha llenges this ruling by his third issue on app eal. W hen det er mini ng w hether the tr ial co u rterred i n admi tti ng rele v ant p hotog ra phs int o ev ide nce, our

rev iew i s l imi ted to deter mini ng w hether the probati v e v alu e of the photos i s s ubst anti all y

outw eig hed by

the dang er

of unfair

preju dice , co n f u si on of the issues, o r mislead ing the jury , or byconside ration s of und ue d elay or nee dless present ati on of

cumulat iv e ev ide nce. See i d. ; Young v. State , 2 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 5 4 , 8 7 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2009) ; L o n g v
. S tate , 8 2 3 S

. W .2d 259 , 271 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91); Mo n t g o m e r y v. State , 8 1 0 S.W .2d 3 72, 3 89 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ( op. o n reh’ g ). The p ro b a t i v e v a l u e o f a c o l o r p h o t o g ra p h o r

a v i d e o re c o rd i n g d e p i c t i n g t h e re c o v e r y o f a murde r v icti m’s body

may outw eig h it s preju dic ial effectev en w hen t he depi cti on i ncl udes cl ose- ups and l ing er ing ca mera ang les , s o l ong as the i m a ges s impl y reflectthe g ru esomenes s o f the offense. Ri pkows ki v. Sta te , 61 S.W .3d 3 78, 392 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2001)

. The tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on is re viewe d under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard and
ma y be distu rbed on ap pea l onlyw hen falling outsid e t h e zo ne o f reason able dis ag re ement. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391

. A c our t may co nsi der

many factors i n det er mini ng w hether the probati v e v alu e of pho tograph s is substan tially outweig hed b y

t he dan ger of

u nfair p rejudice

. T hese facto rs inc lud e: the n umber

of ex hib it s o ffered, t hei r gru e so m e ness , t hei r detai l, thei r si z e,
w hether they are in col or or bl ack and w hit e, w hether

they are c los e- up, a nd w hether the body depict ed is cl othed or

nak ed. Young , 283 S.W .3d at 874 . A court, ho w ever, shouldA t t ri al , t he sp ec i fi c ob j ec t i on s l od ge d w ere “t ha t t he su bs t an c e o f t he s e e x hi bi t s , t he i r prob ati ve 5 v a l u e i s o u tw e i g h e d b y th e p re ju d i c i a l e ff e c t, th e y ’ re c u m u l a ti v e , re p e ti ti v e , d u p li c i to u s , a n d a re i n te n d e d to i n fla m e a n d c re a te s y m p a th y w i th th e ju ry.” 19 not be l imi ted b y

thi s l is t; the a v ail abi li ty of other means of proof and the ci rc umstan ces uni q ue to eac h i ndi v idu al cas e s houl d al so be c onsi dered. Id. The v ide o recordin g at is sue here s how s D e Leon’ s b ody as it is bei ng remov ed from the apar

tment. Ac cordin g to Garci a, t he v ide o s how s a n “ uncl othed cadav er sh ow ing it s b re ast s a nd g eni tal ia. ” Garci a arg ues there w as no probati v e v alu e i n s how ing the body “i n a v er y g ru esome sta te, bur nt an d w it h i mag es of the breast s a nd g eni tal ia. ” H e furt her
c la im s t h e re wa s n o n e e d t o i n t ro d u c e t h e vi d e o b e c a u s e “ a ll o f t h is im a ge ry c o u ld h a ve been an d w as tes ti fied to by the off ic ers w ho w ere presentat the c ri me sc ene.” The photog ra phs depi ct si mil ar i mag es as show n on the v ide o re cordin g
. Ac cordin g to G arci a, s how ing a “ badl y ch a rre d b o dy

w it h ex posed g eni tal s,” “ cl ose up v iews o f the bur nt bo dy ,” “ the b ur nt bo dy w it h the breast s ex posed and the v icti m’s face s tar ing at the
camera,” “ a c los e up v iew of the b ody

sh ow ing the ex posed breast s a nd th e face,” “ an extreme close up of

the bu rnt face o f

the victim,” and “the unclot hed v ictim f rom h er w aist dow n, s how ing her

ex posed g eni tal s” w as more preju d ici a l th a n probati v e. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 403. He arg ues, once ag ain , that “t he tes ti mony of nu merou s o ff ic ers reg ardin g the loc ati on and condi ti on of the body w as suffici ent.” 5 W e di sc er n n o a b u se of dis creti on i n the admi ss ion of the v ide o recordin g and photog ra phs in q uest ion

. Theyw ere all probati v e of the manner

of De Leon’ s d eath, and t h e m a n n e r i n wh ic h G a rc ia a t t e m p t e d t o d e s t ro y e vid e n c e o f h is f in ge rp ri n t s o n h e r b o d y. See La dd v

. St ate , 3 S. W .3d 547, 56 8 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. The v ide otape and photog ra phs are rele v ant b ecaus e theyaccuratel y reflectthe loc ati on and sta te of the body
w hen i t w as dis cov ered and the inj ur ies infli cte d on it

. See Ripkow ski , 61 S.W .3d a t 392 ; see als o McGh ee v

. St ate , No

. 0 1 -0 9 -0 0 1 4 7 -C R, 2 0 1 0 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 5 5 6 1 , a t*1 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] J uly 15, 2010, no pe t. h.) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for20

publ ic ati on)

. They suppo rt the tes ti mony that De Leon w as strang led w it h a cabl e c ord and bur ned. See Ripkow

ski , 61 S.W .3d a t 392

. W hil e the i mag es por

tray ed may

be g ru esome, they depi ct nothi ng more than the
re ali ty of the b ru tal cr ime commi tted and i ts aftermath

. See Par edes v. State , 129 S. W .3d 530 (Tex. Cr im. App

. 200 4). P hot ographs are notren dere d inad missible m erely beca use they are g ru esome or mig ht tend to arouse the pass ion s of t he jur y , unl ess they

are offered sol ely for t he pur pose of infla ming the minds of the jur y
. Potter v. Sta te , 74 S.W .3d 1 05, 112 ( Tex . Ap p.–W a co 2 0 0 2 , no pet.) ; W ar d v . St ate , 7 8 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990, pet. ref’d)

. W h ile t h e cri me sc ene v ide o recordin g and photog ra phs do mak e an ind eli ble i mpres si on, t hey do n ot de pict more than the n ature of the c ri me. See Ripkow ski , 61 S.W .3d a t 3 9 2

. Fur ther , al thoug h the v ide otape and pho tograp hs ma y

h av e be en p ar

ti al l y c um ul at i v e of o th er

e v i de nc e, t he t r i al c ou rt could have reason ably conclude d tha t the prob ative v alue of the evidence was not sub stan tially outw eig hed by it s t endency to prolo ng the tr ial

. See La dd , 3 S.W .3d at 568. W e c oncl ude that the t ri al cour

t di d not a b u se i ts dis creti on i n admi tti ng the photog ra phs and v ide o re cordin g i nto e v ide nce. G arci a’s thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. D. Denial of Motion to R emov e Juror By his fourth issue, Garcia asse rts that th e trial court erred i n den y ing his request to re mov e a juror
. Dur ing tr ial , defense co unsel i nformed t he tr ial co urt t hat j uror number fiv e had eng ag ed i n a c onv ersat ion w it h a w it ness , D etecti v e H er nandez

. Outs ide the presenc e of the jur

y , defense co unsel as ked Her nandezw hether he had any

co ntact w it h the jurors. D ete ctiv e Hernan dez respond ed a s follows: A

. [ De t e c t ive He rn a n d e z] A n y co n t a c twit h t h e ju ro rs ? I s a id h i t o a re la t ive of mine. Q

. [ D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ] Di d y ou j ust w a i v e [si c] hi, or di d y ou hav e a v erba l discussion wi th he r? A. She c ame up a nd s aid hi to me.O n ap peal , G ar ci a ar gues t hat he was “ deni ed a f ai r and i m par t i al t r i al and due pr ocess o fl aw when 6 th e c o u r t f a ile d to r e m o v e J u r o r n o . 5 ” a n d c ite s th e s ta n d a r d o fr e v ie w a p p lic a b le to a m o tio n f o r m is tr ia l. H owev er , G ar ci a di d no t m ov e f or a m i st r i al at t r i al , nor di d he obj ect t hat hi s const i t ut i onal ri ght s wer e be i ng d e n i e d

. H e h a s th e re fo re n o t p re s e rv e d th e s e i s s u e s fo r a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1. 21 Q. W hat w as dis cus sed or w hat w as sai d? Tel l us w hat w as act ual ly

sa id. A. She asked how my ba by w as, an d I said, “Sh e is fine. How

i s y ours?” An d tha t w as the extent of it

. Q. Y ou di dn’ t ment ion to her , “I’ ll tal k t o y ou l ater on or af ter this case ,” or “ I’ll talk to y o u i n a bit”? Y ou di dn’ t ment ion anythi ng l ik e tha t? A. I t old her thatw e w oul d ta lk a fter thi s t ri al w as done. Q. Anythi ng el se that w as sai d oth er than that ? A. That w as it

. At t he c los e of it s cas e- in- chi ef, defense couns el obj ect ed to j uror number fiv e and ask ed th at t he c our

t “ ex erci se it s d is creti on” to deter mine w hether the co n vers a ti on th at took pl ace ro se to the l ev el of juror mis condu ct re sul ti ng i n preju dic e to Garci a. The t ri al 6
cour t found that the conv ersat ion did not “r is e to the lev el of prej udi ce” and ru led thatthe juror remain. W hen a juror

co nv erse s wi th an unaut hor iz ed person, i nju ry i s p re sumed. Gr

een
v. State , 84 0 S.W .2d 394 , 406 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92). How ever, the presu mp tion is
re butta ble ; i f it is sh ow n tha t t he c ase w as not dis cus sed or thatnoth ing preju dic ial to the
acc used w as sai d, t hen appel lan t has not b een i nju re d and the v erdict w il l be uphe ld. Id. W e defer to the tr ial cour t’ s re sol uti on of hi sto ri cal facts and i ts deter minat ion s c oncer nin g credi bil ity

and demeanor , and w e v iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al
cour t’ s r uli ng
. Qui

nn v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 395 , 401 -02 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7). Here, t he unc ontrov erted e v ide nce est abl is hed t hat D etecti v e H er nandezdi d not dis cus s t he c ase w it h j uror number fiv e, nor did he say anythi ng preju dic ial to Garci a dur ingG ar ci a ar gues t hat , had hi s coun sel not beco m e awar e of t he co nv er sat i on, i t woul d ha v e r em ai ned 7 “s e c re ti v e .” A c c o rd i n g to G a rc i a , “[t ]h a t m a k e s th i s c o n v e rs a ti o n a n d b e h a v i o r b y th e ju ro r s u s p e c t a n d p u ts t he j ur or ’ s and t he o ff i cer ’ s cr edi bi l i t y at i ssue. ” G ar ci a ci t es no aut hor i t y f or t hese ar gum ent s, and we ar e no t p e rs u a d e d b y th e m
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38

. 1(i ). 22 his co nv ersat ion w it h the juror
. Any presumpt ion of i nju ry w as re butte d by

thi s e v ide nce. 7 See G re en , 840 S .W .2d at 406. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the
ru li ng , see Qui

nn , 958 S.W .2d a t 401-02 , w e concl ude that the tri al cour t di d notabus e i ts discretion byden y ing Garcia’s request to remo v e juror num ber f iv e. Accordin gly , Garcia’s fourth is sue is ov er ru led

. E. In ef

fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel By hi s fifth i ss ue, Garci a c lai ms t hat h e recei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el at trial. T o esta blish a claim for inef fective assistance , Garcia mu st show ( 1) his atto rney’s represe nta tion fell below an object iv e stan dard of reason able ness, and ( 2 ) t h e re is a
reaso nab le proba bility

that , butfor his a ttorn ey’s errors, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing would hav e been different. Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 664, 668 ( 1984) ; Hernan dez v. State , 726 S. W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex . C ri m. 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 hether thi s t esthas been met i s t o be jud g ed
on a ppe al by the tota lity of the rep resen tatio n, n o tb y a n y isolated acts or om issions. Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851

. T he burd en is o n the app ellantto prove inef fective assistance of couns el by

a prepo n d e ra n ce o f the ev ide nce. Id. Our review of coun sel’s
re present ati on i s h ig hly de f e re nti al, and w e w il l find i neffect iv e as si sta nce onl y i f the appel lan t ov ercomes the strong presumpt ion that her couns el’ s c onduct fell w it hin the w ide
ra ng e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. Fur

ther , t he acts or

omi ss ion s t hat for m the basi s o f appell ant’ s c lai m of ine ffect iv e ass is tanc e must be ev ide nced by the re cord. See Thom

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

. App. 1999) ; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. In mos t c ases , a si len t
re cord w hic h prov ide s n o e xplanation for c ounse l’ s a cti ons w il l not o v ercome t he s trong presumpt ion of re asona ble as si sta nce. Ma llett v. State , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App.23

2001) ; Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4. Garcia com plains o f

sev eral dif

feren t action s and inaction s byhis trial counsel. Spec ific all y , G arci a arg ues that his tr ial co unsel w as ine ffect iv e bec ause: ( 1) he “fail [ed] to ad equate ly

prepa re for trial and p re senta plausib le defense ”; (2) he “fail[ed ] to object to [ i] nadmis si ble ev ide nce” ; ( 3) he o bje cte d to the c onsol ida ti on of the cas e w it h anot her
cas e ag ain st Garci a al leg ing arson and tamperi ng w it h phy si cal ev ide nce, see T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. §§ 28.0 2, 37.09 (Verno n Sup p. 2009 ); (4) he “failed to strike” a pot ent ial juror; and (5) he mad e three sepa rate errors during the p unish me nt ph ase o f tria l. W e w ill address eac h al leg ati on i n tur n. 1. Fai lu re t o Prep are fo r T rial an d Prese nta P lau sib le D ef ense First, Garcia co nte nds tha t his trial co unse l “fail[ed ] to ade quately prep are for trial” and “ did not offer

to the j ur

y any pl ausi ble defense. ” H e arg ues that his co unsel w ait ed unti l one w eek before tr ial to re q uest a w it ness li st from the Stat e, ev en th oug h i t had been f if tee n mo nth s since Garcia w as arraigned. How ever, as th e S tate note s, the record ref lects tha t defense co unse l was en gaged in d iscovery long before ob tainin g the w itness li st from the Stat e. In an y ev ent, Garci a does notpoi nt t o any ev ide nce in the record, ot her than his ow n s elf- ser

v ing sta tements made in an aff ida v it attac hed t o hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial , es tabl is hin g thathi s c ounse l did not inv est ig ate t he l aw and facts o f

t h e c a se. See Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 814 (noting thatclaims of inef fective assistance of

coun sel mu st be ev ide nced b y the rec ord) ; see als o McF ar lan d v . St ate , 9 2 8 S

. W

. 2 d 4 8 2 , 5 0 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1996) ( noti ng that“ couns el is ch arg ed w it h m a k i ng an i ndependen t i nv est ig ati on of the facts of

the case ”). Garci a al so compl ain s t hat h is co unsel nev er req uest e d t h a t the D NA sa mples
o b t a in e d f ro m G o n za le z b e su b m it t e d f o r l a b o ra t o ry a n a lys is

. Ho we ve r, De t e c t ive Hernan dez testif ied th at Go nzalez , a “person of intere st” w ith respe ct to De Le on’s m urde r, came t o the pol ic e s tati on v olu ntar il y to be inter

v iew ed, that Gonz ale zw as coope ra ti v e, an d that pol ic e di d notfind a ny sc ra tch es on Gonz ale z
. Therefore, G arci a has not show n tha t,24

if hi s c ounse l had i n fact re q uest ed th at G onz ale z ’s D NA sa mp le s b e s ubmitted for anal y si s, the resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been any di fferent. See S tr

ickl and , 466 U. S. a t 668 ; Her

nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 57; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851. W e not e furt her that couns el’ s d eci si on not to req uestanal y si s o f Gonz ale z ’s D NA sa mples may

hav e been t h e p ro d u c to f

a va li d t ri a l s t ra t e gy, b e c a u s e n e ga t ive re s u lt s f ro m su c h t e s t in g wo u ld h a ve been sev erely

detr iment al to G arci a’s defensi v e the or y
. See S ki

nner v. Sta te , 293 S.W .3d 196 , 203 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 09) ( f inding no show ing of inef fective assistance w here record suppo rt ed c oncl usi on that couns el’ s failu re to seek DN A te sti ng w as “a matte r of sound tr ial strate gy ”). 2. Fai lu re t o Ob

j ectt o In adm issib le E v id ence Gar ci a n e xt c o mp l a i n s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l fa i l e d t o ( 1 ) mo v e fo r s u p p re s s i on of
ev ide nce sei z ed “ w hil e [G arci a] w as b e in g d e tained,” and (2 ) obj ectto tes ti mony esta blishing thatGarcia ref used to v olun tarily provi de h is clothes to police of f icers. To est abl is h an ine ffect iv e as si sta nce cl aim based on c ounse l’ s fai lure to mov e for suppress ion of ev ide nce, an a ppel lan t mus t s howt h a t th e moti on w oul d hav e been g ra nted. Jacks on v

. St ate , 9 7 3 S. W .2 d 95 4 , 9 5 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). Citi n g Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30 (196 8), Garcia argues tha t the search w hich prod uced this evi den ce
w as not i nci dent to a law ful ar re st and t herefore on ly a pat- dow n or fris k w as author iz ed. How ev er , t he record does not suppo rt thi s int er pretati on of ev ents

. Und er the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re , a w ar ra ntl ess ar re st maybe made “ [w]here i t i s s how n by sat is factor

y proof to a peace of

ficer , upon the re present ati on of a credi ble person, thata felony has been commi tted, and that the offender is about to escape , so that there is no time to procu re a w arrant . . . .” T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 14 .04 (Vernon 200 5). Here, Dete ctiv e Cavaz os test if ied th at he w as assigned to l ocat e Garcia aft er De Leo n’s
v ehi cl e w as found abandoned

. Pol ic e knew at the t ime that De Leon ha d been murde re d, tha t her bo dy had bee n set on f ire, and thatGarcia w as on e of the last p eop le to see De Leo n aliv e. Detect iv e Cavaz os locate d Garcia base d on informa tion o bta ined f rom Ja nell,25

and he “i mme d ia te ly” smel led smok e on Garci a’s person, sa w smok e resi due around Garcia’s ears an d ne ck, and saw scratches o n Garcia’s face a nd n eck. Base d on this infor mati on, Det ect iv e C av az os w as author iz ed to ar re st Garci a w it hout a w ar ra nt. See i d. Acc ordin g ly , G arci a has not show n that a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce obtai ned i nci dent to his law

ful ar re st w oul d hav e been g ra nted. See Jack son , 973 S.W .2d a t 957 ; Stron g v. State , 138 S.W .3d 546 , 555 (Tex. Ap p .–Corp us Christi 2004 , no pe t.) (“[T]h e rule is
w ell -e sta bli shed that failu re to obtai n a search w ar ra nt is ex cus abl e under both the U nit ed Stat es and Tex as Con sti tuti ons w here the se arch is i nci dent to a law ful ar re st. ”) ; Sta te v. W est , 20 S.W .3d 8 67, 8 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2000, pet. re f’d) ( “A se arch in ci dent to a lawf ul arrest requires no add itiona l justif ication .”). 3. Ob

j ect io n to C on sol id at io n of M urder an d A rso n Cas es Garci a next arg ues that his tr ial couns el w as ine ffect iv e becau se he obj ect ed to the Sta te’s request to conso lidate the un derlyi ng case w ith a sep arate case in w hich Ga rcia
w as a c c us ed of ars on an d ta mp er i ng w i th p hy s i c al e v i de nc e i n c on ne c ti on w i th t he s am e cr imi nal epi sode. G arci a arg ues that “ the pri mary ev ide nce ag ain st [hi m] w as conc er nin g the arson,” an d con ten ds tha t his trial counse l “should ha v e allowed t he co nsolida tion so that the j ur

y had the o pti on to co nv ict [ him] of arson and find hi m not g uil ty as to murde r. ” How ever, as the Sta te correctly n o t es, “mu rder and arson are d istinct of fense s[,] ea ch cont ain ing elements not found in the o ther , meani ng thatthere w as no l eg al impedi ment
or j eopardy

i ss ue w hic h w oul d prev ent [ Garci a] fro m bei ng co nv icted a nd s entenc ed for b o t h o ffe n s e s ” e v e n i f t h e a rs o n a n d m u rd e r c a s e s w e re c o n s o l i d a t e d

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 9.0 2, 28 .02 . Garcia has th erefore no t shown that, but for his coun sel’s obj ectio n to cons oli dati on, t he resul t of the murde r tr ial w oul d hav e been different. See Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 66 8; Her nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 57; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. 4. Failure to “Strike ” Prospec tiv e Juror Garci a furt her

co ntends thathi s t ri al co u n sel er re d by fail ing to ex erci se a peremptor

y ch all eng e ag ain st a prospecti v e j uror , bec ause that juror w as re lat ed to oneT h e ju ro r re fe re n c e d b y G a rc i a i n th i s s u b -is s u e is th e s a m e ju ro r th a t h a d a b rie f d i s c u s s i o n w i th 8 a wi t ne s s , D etec t i ve H ern an de z. S ee infra s ec t i on I I I

. D

. T he j uro r st ated i n vo i r di re t ha t sh e i s D etec t i ve H er nande z ’ s cousi n. 26 of t he w it ness es. G arci a arg ues that “[ t]here w oul d notbe a ny pl ausi ble j ur

y st ra teg y to 8 all ow thi s t o happe n.” H ow ev er, Ga rci a d o e s n ot al leg e on appeal that , had hi s t ri al
coun sel used a perem pto ry challen ge on this prosp ective juror, there is a reason a ble probabi li ty that the re sul t of t he proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. See S tr ickl and , 466 U. S. a t 668 ; Her

nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 57; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. 5. Pun ish men t Pha se Er ro rs Garci a next al leg es that his tr ial couns el made three er ro rs dur ing the p uni shment phase of tr ial

. He firs t as ser ts g ene ra lly t h at hi s c ounse l “w as w hol ly i neffect iv e i n the pun ishm entpha se,” prima rily beca use h e called only one w itness, Jane ll, to testif y on his beh alf . Garcia c la im s t hat“[t]he co mp lete lack of mitigating or punishm entev iden ce present ed on [hi s] behal f is cl ear ly i neffect iv e c onsi der ing the g ra v ity of the charg es and the len gth of the t ri al. ” Garci a does not, how ev er , poi nt t o any sp eci fic “ miti g ati ng or puni shment ev ide nce” that his co unsel co uld hav e present ed, b ut c hose not t o. He has not
me t his burde n to est ablish ine f fective assistance of

coun sel on th ese ground s. Seco nd, G arci a c ontends thathis tr ial co unsel er re d w hen, dur ing cl osi ng arg ument at th e pu nishm entpha se, cou nsel sta ted as follows: I’ m ask ing y ou to thi nk of w hat l ies ahead for Ga brie la ’s famil y , w hat l ies ahead for

the family

of Mr . Garc ia. Is he a person w ho i s worthy of re cei v ing a 10 -y ear sen ten ce, a 20-y ear sen ten ce, a 30 -y ear sen ten ce, w here it tells y ou th at he ’ll serve on e-ha lf t he tim e? One -half

the tim e be fore he ’s elig ible for parole

. At t he ag e of 31, if y ou’ re g iv en a 30- y ear se ntenc e and y ou ser v e hal f the ti me, i t’ s a bout 45. And itd o e sn ’tm ean t hat y ou’ re g oin g to g et ou t. Itj ustmeans y ou’ re el ig ibl e for parol e. Y our

conductdri v es w hether y ou g et out or not. If he has dis ag re ements in 30 y ears, he’ s g oin g to be 30 y ears i nsi de. He’ ll be 6 0. At 30 ye ars, if he does ev er ythi ng he’ s s uppos ed to, he’ ll be o ut at45. At 30 y ears, if he d oesn’ t do what he’ s s uppos ed to , he’ ll be o ut at60. At 60. Ga rc i a arg ue s tha t hi s “c ou ns el ’ s as s er ti on s t o th e j ur

y reg ardi ng t he a c tu al a mo un t of t i me to be serv ed a re co mp letely m isleadin g an d det rimen tal to [Garcia] .” How ever, th e rem arks27

w ere cons is tent w it h the ch arg e of the cour t as to sent enci ng , w hic h i nformed t he j ur y that it“ mayco nsi der

the ex is tenc e of the p a ro le l a w a nd g ood c onduct t ime” i n ar ri v ing at it s deci si on. It is tr ue th at c ounse l w as n o t e n ti re ly a cc urate i n s etti ng forth the law as to parole —th e j ur

y ch arg e s tated that , if a ter m of i mpri sonment is impos ed, Garci a w il l not beco me elig ible for parole “until the act ual tim e se rve d e qu a ls o ne-h alf of the sen ten ce impos ed or 30 years, wh icheve r is less

. . .” (e mphasi s a dded)

. Nev erthel ess , w e c annot say thatco unsel ’s per

formance in maki ng thes e remark s fel l outs ide t h e “ wide rang e of
reaso na bl e profession al assistan ce.” See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 85 1. Finally , Garcia con ten ds tha t his coun sel erred by failing to object to the prosecu tor’s sta tement in cl osi ng arg ument t hat D e Leon’s “bl ood w as all ov er [Garc ia’ s] cl othes ,” noti ng tha t the ev iden ce me rely estab lished t h a tDe Leon ’s DNA w as all over Garcia’s clothe s. W e can notsaythat , had defense coun sel obje cted to this language, th ere is a reason able probabi li ty that the re sul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. See Str ickl and , 466 U. S. a t 668 ; Her

nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 57; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. W e ov er ru le Garci a’s fifth i ss ue. F. Notice of Ev idence of Prior Conv iction By hi s s ixth i ss ue, G arci a c ontends thatthe tr ial cour t er re d dur ing the puni shment phase by

admi tti ng , ov er

obj ect ion , e vidence of Garci a’s pr ior co nv icti on for ag g ra v ated
assau lt. Garcia specif ically argues thatthe evidence shou ld have b een e x clude d be cause the S tate did not prov ide “ re asona ble noti ce” of its in tent to offer

su ch ev ide nce. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 37 .07 , § 3(g). Here, G arci a fil ed a re q uestfor noti ce under ar ti cl e 37. 07 on September 13, 2006. T h e S t a t e d id n o tf il e it s in it ia l r e s p o n s e t o t h a tre qu e s tu n t il A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 7 , e l e v e n d a ys before tr ial w as set. W hen the Sta te of fered its extraneo us of fense evide n c e a ttrial, defense c ounse l obj ect ed, a rg uin g thatthe Stat e’s pr ior noti ce mis sta ted t he c ause numberW e n o te th a t t h e s ta tu te r e q u ir e s t h e S ta te ’s n o tic e t o c o n ta in “ th e d a te o n w h ic h a n d th e c o u n ty in 9 w h ic h th e a lle g e d c r im e o r b a d a c t o c c u r r e d a n d th e n a m e o fth e a lle g e d v ic tim o fth e c r im e o r b a d a c t” o n ly w h e re th e S ta te “ i n te n d s to in tro d u c e a n e x tra n e o u s c rim e o r b a d a c t that has not resul t ed i

n a f inal conviction i n a co urt of rec ord or a p rob ated or su s pe nd ed se nten c e.” T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art

. 37. 07, § 3( g) ( Ver non Supp. 200 9) ( em phasi s added)

. H er e, t he ext r aneou s off ense ev i dence off er ed by t he St at e was a fin a l c o n v i c ti o n fo r a g g ra v a te d a s s a u l t.

I t i s not ewor t hy t hat , accor di ng t o t he ext r aneou s off ense j udgm ent adm i t t ed i nt o ev i dence, one of 10 G ar ci a’ s at t or ney s i n t he i nst ant case al so r epr esent ed h i m i n t he p r i or agg r av at ed a ssaul t case. 28 and date of

the extrane ous o f

fense and did notstate the na me of a victim. T he trial cou rt

9
ov er ru led the obj ect ion and admitted t he ev ide nce. W e revi ew the adm ission of extrane ous of

fense o r ba d act evidence for an ab use of dis creti on. Mitch ell

v. Sta te , 931 S.W .2d 950 , 953 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96). T he p urpo se o f a rt i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 , s e c t i o n 3 ( g ) i s t o a v o i d u n fa i r s u r p r i s e a n d t o e n a b l e a defendant to prepare to answ er

the extraneous offense ev ide nce. Luna v. State , 301 S.W .3d 3 22, 3 26 (T e x. Ap p .– W a co 20 0 9 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Apol ina r v. State , 1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 4 -1 5 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3) , aff’ d on other

gr ounds , 155 S.W .3d 1 84 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ; Roe thel

v. Sta te , 80 S.W .3d 276, 282 (Tex

. App.–A ust in 2002, no pet .) ; Nance v. State , 9 4 6 S

. W .2d 490 , 493 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 97, pet. ref ’d)). This ana ly sis
re q uires ex amini ng the re cord to deter mine w hether t he defic ien t not ic e resul ted from prosec utor ial bad faith o r prev ented the d efendant from p re par ing for t ri al. Id. ( ci ti ng Roe thel , 80 S.W .3d at 282). In deter mini ng the la tter , w e l ook at w hether the defendant
w as sur pr is ed by

the subs tanc e of the tes ti mony and w hether

thataffect ed hi s a bil ity to prepare c ro ss -e x aminat ion or mit ig ati ng ev ide nce. Id. A s s u m in g, b u tn o td e c id in g, t h a tt h e S t a t e ’ s n o t ic e wa s in fa c td e f ic ie n t , we neverthe less not e tha t Garcia has not establishe d tha t he w as surprised by the sub stan ce of the extrane ous o f

fense ev iden ce, no r has he sho w n tha t his ability to prep are his case
w as detr iment all y

affect ed by the admis si on of thatev ide nce. See i d. M oreo v er, Garcia 10 ha s n ot directe d us to a nything i n the record indicat ing that the State ’s tardiness in prov idi ng noti ce pursuantto his req uest , or the er ro rs i n the noti ce it sel f, w ere the resul t of prosec utor ial bad faith. See i d. Accordin gly , w e conclu de that the trial court did not ab use29

it s d is creti on by

ov er ru li ng Garc ia’ s objecti on to the Stat e’s extraneous of fense ev ide nce. Hi s s ixth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Garci a’s iss ues on appeal, w e af firm the judg ment of

the tr ial
cour t.

_________ _________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv ered and filed the 31stday of Aug ust , 201 0.