### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 60 -C R

______________________________ ROY L EE FO X, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 258th J udicial District Court

Trinity County , Texas Trial Court No. 9170

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rFox's sente nce w as enha nced due to a pre vious conviction of ag g ravated ra pe. 1 This case h as b ee n t ransf err ed to this Court as part of the T exas Supreme Court' s docket 2 e qu a lizatio n p ro g ra

m. 2

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON After a jury found Roy

L ee Fox guilty

of sexual assault, the trial judg e sente nced him to life imprisonment. On appe al, Fox argues t h at t h e evide nce w as fa ctually insufficient to support the 1 jury ' s verdict. F ox also complains that he wa s denied e ffe ctive assistance of trial counse l in severa l
re sp e c ts. 2 F ir st, we fi nd the e vid e nc e fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the jur y ' s v e rd ic t of

g uil t. We a lso deter mine that Fox has not shown that he rece ived i neff ective assistance of counsel. We affir m the trial court' s judgme nt. I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Patricia Willi amson lear

ned that her e strang ed husband w as coming back into town. Af ter h av i n g t h re e t o fo u r b ee rs at h er s i s t er 's h o u s e, s h e p u t o n a n ew o ra n ge s we at er an d we n tt o Be l l 's Camp Marina B ar in Tr inity , Texas, wher e her husband was known to hangout. Wi lliamson ordere d

a be e r, de te rm ine d he r hu sb and wa s no t the re , and a sk e d he r ba rt e nd e r fr ie nd

if sh e c ou ld b or

ro w h is phone. She intended to c all the bar tender ' s mother, J ean D ix on, and ask to sta y the nig ht with her, bu t th e ba

r d id n ot h a ve a

telep ho ne. W il li amso n le ft the ba r a nd wa s a pp ro a c he d b y

F ox wh ile g etting into he r car . Appar ently overhe aring her conver sation with the barten d er , Fo x o ffe red Wil liamson the use of his phone and invited to take her to breakfast. She then use d Fox's c ell phone3

to call Dixon. W illiamson clim bed into Fox's truck, and they heade d to Riverside, Texas, to eat at P ap a K ei t h 's R es t au r a n t
. Af t er d i s co v er i n g i t

wa s cl o s ed , t h ey

we n tb ac k

t o T ri n i t y

t o J o s ep h 's Restaura nt, which Will iamson then reme mbere d was a lso closed. Fox then turned down a

dirt road. Wil liamson told him she neede d to ge t back to her vehicle. Fox replied, " [W ]e should fool around a little bit." Willi amson said, " Idon' t do that," but offer ed to s wa p numb e rs so the y

c ou ld g o o ut on a

date . F ox sim

ply a ff ir me d th a t " he wa s g oin g to g e t hi m some of that." When Wi lliamson said she would just get out a nd went to open the door of the truck, Fox gr abbed he r hair a

nd hit her in the hea d with such forc e that it "r ang [her] bell." After the blow, Willi a mso n w a s in sh oc k. F ox ba c ke d his tr uc k int o a c le ari ng wh ile re pe a tin g , " I ' m g oin g to g e t me some of that." Unsucc essfully , Wil liamson tried to talk him int o letting he r g o. Wi ll ia ms o nte s ti f

ie d th a t F o x f

o r c e d h e r to pe r f

o r m o r a l s e x o nh im

. D u r in g o r a l s e x, Wil liamson feig ned shoulder dislocation, beg an scr eaming , and said that she nee ded to g et outside to hit her shoulder ag ainst the truck so it c ould sna p into plac e. When F ox let her out of the truck, sh e ra n thro ug h a

pa sture tr y ingto e sc a

pe . F ox c a

ug ht u p to Willi a mso n and sh ov e d he r d ow n w ith pr e ssu re tha t to ok the br e a th o ut o f h e r a

nd sc are d h e r. F ox g ot o n to p o f Wi lli a mso n, pu sh e d h is knee on he r che st, put one hand on her throat and a

nother on the top of he r head, a nd said, " [W ]e can do this the hard wa

y or the e asy

way ." F ox s t o o d her up, took he r bac k to the truck, slammed he r ag ainst the door, and c hoked her . Then, he remove d and neatly folded his pants an d s h i rt , and
re mov e d h e r p anti e s and

pa nts . F ox pu sh e d Wil liamso n in to t he dri ver's sid e of

the tr uc k w hil e4

pulling her

hair at all times. Fox got in, g ot on top of Wi lliamson, and had sex with her. He bur ned Wil liamson on the fore head and arm with a cig are tte. He f orce d her to wr ap her

leg s around him and threatened to have anal intercour se with her if she did not satisfy

him. After inter course , he for ced her to pe rfor

m oral sex on him aga in. After Wil liamson's shoulder ac tually dislocated, F ox allowed her to sit up and g et dre ssed. Will iamson beg g ed F ox to take her back to her mother' s house. F ox told her that, if she told anyone that i t wa s a fi gh t, he would hurt her beca use he kne w wher e she lived. As soon as Will iamson arr ived, she burst into her mother' s house and a nnounced that she had been r aped. Offic er Steve n Casper w as dispatche d to the mother' s home and found Williamson crying pretty hard on the co u ch i n t h e fe tal position. He saw re d marking s, which he te stified wer e consistent with choking , around Williamson's nec k. Her clothing w as dirty , and it looked like he r
sw e a te r w a s p ull e d a s if sh e wa s in so me so rt of str ug g le

. Ca sp e r tr ans po rt e d Wil liamso n to Tr ini ty Hospital and wa s met by

Offic er James Gratz and his wife. Gratz obs erve d that W i l l i am s on was

" e xtre me ly

e mot ion a l and

c ry ing ," and he r f a c e and lip s we re sw oll e n. B e c a us e Tr ini ty

Ho sp ita l di d
no t h a v e a s e xu a l a s s a

u l t n u r s e e xam i n e r ( S A

N E ) , G r a t z an d h i s w i f

e t r an s p o rt e d W i l lia mso n to Memoria l He rm an n Hospital in The Woodlands. SANE nurse Nicole Trig g s conducte d the fourto five-hour

examination. Nurse T rig g s repor

ted that Will iamson was quiet, anxious, h ad m i n imal ey e conta ct, was
nauseated, and wa s cry

ing. She noticed Wil liamson ha d bruising on her rig ht uppe r lip and lower5

left lip, which she testified c ould be consistent with a blow to the fac e. Willi amson had a brasions on her le ft hip, upper lef

t hip, lef t shoulder bac k are a, lower rig ht arm, for ehea d, and rig ht back a rea . T h e ab ra s i o n s o nh er

u p p er ar m an d fo re h ea d we re co n s i s t en twi t h ci gar et t e b u rn s . T ri ggs deter mined Wil liamson h ad been stra ng led at maximum forc e af ter view ing a

n abra sion on Wil liamson's ne ck and noticing that she wa s coug hing, ha d difficulty breathing a

nd swallowing , and exhibi ted a hoa

rse, r aspy voice. The g enital examination revea led bruises at Wi lliamson's hy men
and ur e thr a l me a tus , tw o te ars a t th e po ste ri or fo ur c he tte , a

nd re dn e ss i n th e c e rv ix ca

us e d by a c ute
or re cent tra

uma. Trig g s conclude d that Wil liamson had suffe red phy sical and g enital trauma which

w a s c o n s is te n t w it

h s e xu a l a s s a

u lt r a th e r th anty p ic a l c o n s e n s u a l s e x. II. F actually Su ff

icient Evidence Sup ports the Jury's Ver dict A. Stand ard of Review This Court has the ability

to second-guess the jury to a limited deg ree when r eviewingfac tual sufficie ncy . Ro be rts v . S

tat e , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We vie w the evidenc e in a neutra l light and de termine whe th er the proof of g uilt is obviously

weak as to undermine confide nce in the ve rdict, or, if taken alone , is gr eatly outweig hed by

contra ry proof so a s to be clea rly wrongand unjust. Lan c on v . S tat e , 253 S.W. 3d 69 9, 70 5 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Ro be rts , 22 0 S. W.3 d at 52 4; J

oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W.3 d 1 , 1 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cai n v . S tat e , 958 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Ha rri s v . S tat e , 1 3 3 S. W. 3 d

7 6 0 , 7 6 4 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2004, pet. re f' d).6

Howeve r, since f

actua l sufficienc y

is an issue of fac t, w e are not free to rewe igh the evidenc e and set a side a jury

verdic t mere ly

beca use we fee l a diffe rent re sult is m ore r easona ble. Clewis v. Sta te , 9 2 2 S
. W
. 2 d

1 2 6 , 1 3 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ). I n s t ea d , we g i v e d u e d e f e re n ce t o t h e j u ry 's deter minations and will find the eviden ce fa ctually insufficient only

when ne cessa

ry to preve nt manifest injustice. Ma rsh all v . S tat e , 2 10 S.W. 3d

61 8, 62 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Jo h nson , 23 S.W. 3d a t 8– 9 & 12 ; Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 133 & 135. A hig h deg ree of sk ep t i ci s m about the verdic t is required be fore reve rsal ca n occur . Ro be rts , 2 20 S.W. 3d a t 52 4; Ma rti n v . S

tat e , 252 S.W .3d 809, 820 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. g rante d). B. Ana lys is I nstead of a ddressing the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence prese nted above , Fox restates his de fe ns ive the or

y , c on se ns ua l se x, in a

n atte mpt to c on vin c e us that the e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt. The fa cts supporting this theor y are : Gratz finally located Fox's sister a fter tr y ing f or six wee ks and

a sk e d h e r t o h a ve F ox c a ll G ratz. Whe n F ox c a lle d, he sa id t hat, i f G ratz w ante d to sp e a k w ithhim "r eg ardinghaving sex wit h a women at -- f rom Be ll's Camp, that it was a voluntary

sex and that he didn't do a

ny thing . . . inappr opriate w ith her." Fox also stated that "w hen he tr ied to have a nal intercour se . . . she told him she was g oing to sa y he rape d her." Fox a

rg ues that this a d m i s s ion, combined with the fac t that F ox dropped Wil liamson at he r mother' s house, supports his theory that sex wit h Wil liamson was conse nsual.7

I n addition, Fox points out that Wil liamson had bee n drinking and lef t the bar w ith a man she did not know. Fox also discusses what he considers to be inconsistencies that he argues should lead t h i s Court to a high de g ree of skepticism of the jury ' s verdict. He direc ts us to W ill i am s o n 's te sti mony that sh e we nt t o th e ba

r t o lo ok fo r h e r h us ba nd , w ho wa s vio le nt and ha d be a te n he r i n the past, but she neve r told the barte nder or Gratz t hat fa ct. He states that, while Will iamson testified F o x c h o k e d

h e r w i t h b o t h h an d s , w i t h w h a t T r i g g s d e s c r i b e d a s m a x i m u m f o r c e , t h e r e w a s o n l y a .5 centimeter

bruise on Willi amson' s neck. Fox attempts to de-empha siz e Trig g s' conclusions that the g e nit a l tr a

uma su ff e re d w a s n ot ty

pic al of consensua l s ex an d could be consistent with sexual

a ssa ult by statin g Tr ig g s c ou ld n ot t e sti fy wh e the r t he br uis e s o r a br a sio ns sh e ob se rv e d w e re re c e nt. With ou t me nti on ingthat T ri g g s found a c ute tr a uma on the c e rv ix, Fo x state s Tri g g s found no a c ute trauma on the vag ina. Although her clothes wer e dirty , stretche d, and burned, Fox a rg ues that the clothes we re not torn or

ripped. F inally , Fox directs the Court to an alleg ed lac k o f ev i d en ce by stating that there w ere no photogr aphs of Williamson's bruises a nd her pa nties were never

rec overe d. Acc ording to Fox, the evidenc e of consensua l se x g reatly outweig hed proof

of his g uilt such that the jury ' s verdict wa s clea

rly wrongand unjust. W e d o n o tagr ee . T h e t es t i m o n y el i ci t ed f

r o m W i l l i am s o n , C as p er , Gr at z , an d T ri ggs descr ibed above is f

actua lly sufficie nt to support the jury ' s finding that the enc ounter with F ox was
no t c on se ns ua l. T he jur

y wa s fr e e to co ns ide r an d be lie ve Willi a mso n' s r e c oll e c tio n o f t he inc ide nt, Casp er 's an d

Gr at z 's t es t i m o n y

ab o u tW i l l i am s o n 's d em ea n o r a n d ap p ear ance , and Trig g s' description8

and fi nd ing s from he r o bs e rv a tio n a nd ph y sic a l e xami natio n o f G ratz. F ox' s f ir st p oin t of

e rr or is
overr uled. III . F ox F ail e d t o P r ov e That Ine ffec ti ve As sis ta nc e of C ouns e l D am ag e d His De fens e A . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w Fr om the rec ord re ceived by this Court, Fox bear s the burden of proving that counsel wa s ineffe ctive by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Se e Go od

sp e e d v . S tat e , 1 8 7 S. W. 3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ) (a

ny a lle g a tio n of ine ff

e c tiv e ne ss mus t be f

ir mly fo un de d in

re c or d) ; Thompson

v . S tat e , 9 S.W. 3d

80 8, 81 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Can no n v. Sta te , 6 6 8 S. W. 2 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1984). We apply the two-prong ed Strickland test handed dow n by the United States Supreme Court to de termine whether Fox rece ived ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Fa ilure to satisfy either pr ong of the Strickland test is fatal. Id.

a t 69 7; Ex parte M

artinez , 195 S.W .3d 713, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Thus, we n eed not examine both Strickland prong s if one ca nnot be met. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697. F ox mus t f

ir st s ho w c ouns el's perf

orm ance f ell bel ow a n o bj ect iv e st and ard o f reas on ablen e ss when c o nsidering preva iling prof essional norms. Id. at 6 8 7

– 6 8
. Ou r r ev i ew o f c o u n s el 's pe rf or manc e is h ig hly

de fe re nti a l, a

nd the re is a str on g pr e su mpt ion

that c ouns e l' s c on du c t f

e ll w ith in the wide r ang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance. Id. a t 68 9; Ton g v . S tat e , 25 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). There fore , we will not second- g uess throug h hindsight t h e strateg y of counsel at trial. B l o t t

v . S t a te , 58 8 S.W.2 d 5 88 , 5 92 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Ha ll v . S tat e , 161Even thoug h a motion for new trial was f

iled, it did not raise ineffe ct i v e assistance of 3 counsel and no hear ing w as conduc ted on the motion. Consequently , the re cord is silent conc erning the rationale for tr ial counsel' s actions during trial. 9 S.W .3d 142, 152 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2 0 0 5 , p et
. ref' d). Where the rec ord is silent as to why
c ouns e l f a ile d to make a n o bje c tio n o r take c e rt a in a c tio ns , w e wi ll a ssume it w a s d ue to a ny str a te g ic motivation that can be i mag ined, and the appellant will have failed to rebut the presumption that trial counsel' s actions wer e in some wa y rea sonable. Ma ta v . S

tat e , 226 S.W. 3d 42 5, 43 1 ( Te x. Cr im. 3 Ap p. 20 07 ); Ga rc ia v . S

tat e , 5 7 S. W.3 d 4 36 , 4 41 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ); Fo xv . S tat e , 175 S.W .3d 475, 485–86 (Tex. A

pp.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref ' d). I n other wor ds, we will not conclude that the challeng ed conduc t is deficient unless it was so outra g eous that no compe tent attorney would have eng ag ed in it. Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d 80 8; Fox , 175 S.W .3d at 485–86. Next, it is not enoug h for F ox to show that t h e er ro rs h ad s ome conc eivable e ffe ct on the outcome of the proce eding

. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 693. To meet the se cond prongof the Strickland te st, F ox mus t sh ow

tha t th e de fi c ie nt p e rf

or manc e dama g e d h is d e fe nse su ch th at the re is a
rea sonable proba

bility that the re sult of the trial would have been dif fer ent. Id. ; Tong , 25 S.W .3d at 712. We evaluate t his fac tor while taking into consideration the totality of re prese ntation and the particula r circumstance s of this case

. Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 3; Ex parte Fe lton , 815 S.W .2d 733, 735 (Tex. Cr i m . Ap p . 1 9 9 1). Using these guiding pr inciples, we w ill ex amine F ox ' s claims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel.10

B. F ailure to Object to Evidence That F ox Ret ained an Attor ney Gratz t estified that he r ece ived a c all from an attorne y hired by Fox. Fox arg ues that counsel' s failure to object to this testim ony fell below t

h e r a n g e of re asonable profe ssional assistance. Ar tic le 38 .3 8 o f t

he Te xas C od e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure state s: Ev ide nc e that a per so n ha s con ta c te d or r e ta ine d a n atto rn e y is n ot a dmi ssi ble on the issue of whether the person committed a cr iminal offense . I n a cr iminal case, neither the judge nor the attorney repr esenting the state may comment on the fa ct that the def endant ha s contac ted or re tained an attorney in the case

. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.38 (V ernon 2005)

. We conclude that trial counsel may have f ailed to object to this i nadmissible evidence for strateg ic re asons. Fox told Gratz that he would meet him at the police station on J anuar y 1, 2007, bu t f a ile d to do so . F ox c a lle d a nd re sc he du le d f

or Janu ary 2, fa ile d to sh ow up , c a lle d to re sc he du le the meetingfor J anuar

y 3, and ag ain fa iled to meet with Gratz. Thi s testimony was in fr ont of the jury befor e Gratz stated he rec eived a call from Fox's counsel on J anuar y 4, that he wa s assured F ox
wo u l d co n t ac th i m o nt h e 5 t h , b u tt h at Gr at z n ev er h ea rdfr o m ei t h er

o n e a gai n . I nGr at z 's
cross-e x amination, the strateg y for f ailing to objec t was re veale d: Q. I f I ' m a police of

fice r, and I call y ou up on the phone and sa y , Iwant to talk to y ou about a r ape.

Tell the l adies and g entlemen of the j ury what' s the first thing you' re g oing to do. A. Call an attorney

. Q
. A b s o l u t e l y . W h y

i s t h a t ?11 A. Be cause Iknow how the police operate. Q. They

can tr ick people. T hey

can cajole them into saying thing s that can be used, when nece ssarily taken out of contex t, it wouldn' t be any big de al; but t h e w ay i t ' s u s e d , i th u rt s t h e m , r i g h t ? A. That' s corr ect. I t could be.

. . . . Q.
. . . So the fac t that he called David Ry an -- now, you g ot to remember t h e c o n t e x tt h a tt h i s i s t h e v e r y f i r s tp arto f

t h e ye ar . N o b o dy' s - - n o tm an y a t t o r n e ys w o u l d b e w o r k i n g o nD e c e mb e r

3 1 s to r J an u ar y 1 s t , r i g h t ? A. Not that Iknow of. Q.
. . . So, the fa c t that y ou do n' t he ar fr om an a tto rn e y un ti l, what, J an u ar y t h e 4 t h , t h a ts h o u l dn ' tc o m e a s an y s u r p r i s e t o y o u , s h o u l d

i t ? A. No, sir, that didn' t.

. . . . Q. And nobody should take any neg ative inferenc e from the fact that he h i re d a l aw y er , d i dn 'twa n tt o t al k t o y o u wi t h o u t a l aw y er , an d M r. Ry an d i d

o r d i dn 't g e ta h o l d o f y o uqu i c k

e n o u g h

. T h a t ' s n o tm y

c l i e n t ' s f a u l t , i s i t ? A. No, sir. I t is possi ble that counsel wanted the jury to deter mine that Fox's delay

in meeting with Gratz was du e to h is n e e d to fi nd

an atto rn e y

so that he wo uld no t be tr ic ke d by the po lic e , a nd wa s n ot d

ue to fe ar b ecause o f p os sib le kn ow le dg e of g uil t. Wi tho ut t e sti mony that it may have be e n d if

fi c ult to h i re an at t o rn ey

ar o u n d t h e h o l i d ay

s ea s o n , Fo x 's co u n s el m ay h av e h ada h ar d

t i m e e x p l ai n i n g Fo x 's broken pr omises to meet with Gratz.12

S i n ce i ti s co n ce i v ab l e th at co u n s el u s edt h i s s t ra t egy , we wi l l n o ts ec o n d -gu es s i tt h ro u gh hindsight. Fur

ther, F ox failed to brie f or other wise demonstrate how this err or would have resulted in a diffe rent outcome , espec ially in light of e vidence that was fact u al l y sufficie nt to support the verdic t. Be ca u s e Fo x fa i l ed to meet e ither prongof the Strickland te st, thi s p oin t of e rr or is
overr uled. C. Ext r ane ous Offen se Obj e c ti on Next, Fox complains that extraneous off ense e vidence was int roduce d throug h testimony by Wil liamson that Fox was "ve ry controlling , very -- very instructive, ver y controlling . He ha d done thi s. He kn e w wh a t he wa s doin g ." F ox' s c ouns e l ob je c te d to the state me nt, and an in str uc tio n to disreg ard w as g iven. Now, F ox complains of his counsel' s failure to ask for a mistrial. Her e, counse l protecte d Fox's rig hts by objecting and obtaining an instruction from the trial court that the jury was to " disreg ard the last statement made by the witness." This was ac complished without mentioning an e x trane ous offe nse or a prior bad a ct. Counsel o btained the de sired re lief without calling to t h e j u ry 's attention the spec ific rationale -- that it mi g ht be interpre ted that the witness was insinuating that Fox had sexually assaulted others. "T he asking of an improper question wi ll s e ldo m c a ll f

or a mis tr ia l, b e c a

us e , in mos t c a se s, any

ha rm c a n b e c ur e d b y

an in stru cti on to di sre gard." Lad

d v . S tat e , 3 S
. W
. 3 d

5 4 7 , 5 6 7 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g He rn an de z v . S tat e , 805 S.W .2d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). A mistrial is require d only when the improper que stion13

is clear ly prej u d i ci al to the def

endant a nd is of such cha

rac ter a s to sugg est the impossibil ity of withdrawingthe impression produce d on the minds of the jurors. Id. Fox f ocuses g ener ally on extraneous offe nse case law, but doe s not e stablish h ow Willi a mso n' s spe c if

ic te sti mony

wa s c le arl y

pr e jud ic ia l. T he state me nt " [h]e ha d d on e thi s" c ou ld simply mean that F ox instructed Wil liamson in a controlling manner . The stateme nt that Fox "knew wh a t he wa s d oin g " c ou ld a lso jus t me an th a t he wa s in contr ol. We do n ot t hin k th e se state me nts clea rly establish an introduction of a nother c rime, wrong , or act as conte mplated under Rule 404 of the Texas Rules of Evidence . Ba sed on this ambiguous te stimony , it is hi g hly unlikely that a mistrial

w o u ld h a v e b e e n g r an te d. See T EX . R. E V ID . 404. There fore , counsel' s action in objecting and obtaining a

n instruction to disreg ard the evidenc e wa s not deficient perf o rmanc e eve n though a motion for mistrial was not reque sted. This point of error is overrule d. D. State's P uni shme nt Refere nce I n its ope ning statement, the State argued, "I think a fter y ou' ve hear d all o f t h i s ev i d ence, y ou ' ll a g re e wi th m e tha

t th is - - t his jur y wi ll b e c on vin c e d b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t and

that th is
man nee ds to spend t he rest of -- as l ong as he can in the penitentiary ." During closing statement at the g uil t/i nn oc e nc e ph a se , th e State c on te nd e d F ox " do e sn ' t ne e d to be on the str e e ts. He ne e ds to sp endth e res t o f hi s l if

e in th e pen it ent iar y ." I t is p r o p e r f

o r th e p r o s e c u ti o n to ma

k e a p le a f

o r la w enfor ceme nt. Jac k

so n v . S tat e , 17 S.W .3d 664, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)

. For this re ason, not eve ry ref ere nce to punishment at the14

g uilt/i nnocenc e stag e is improper. W rig ht v . S tat e , 17 8 S.W. 3d 90 5, 93 0 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 2005, pet. re f' d). The a rg ument that the jury should g et the defe ndant off the streets ha s been h e ld to b e a p r o p e r p le a f o r la w e n f o r c e me n t. Smi th v. Sta te , 1 1 4 S. W. 3 d 6 6 , 7 2 ( T e x. App.—Eastland 2003, pe t. ref' d). Where, a s here , the State' s argument does not enc ourag e the jury to ignor e its duties to decide g uilt or i nnocenc e or sug g est that punishment is the only rea l issue, the punishment refe renc e is not nece ssarily improper. W

right , 1 78 S.W. 3d

a t 93 0; Fran c is v . S

tat e , No. 02 -0 5- 00 04 6- CR, 20 06 WL20 34 28 0, a t *2 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th July 20 , 2 00 6, no pe t.) (m e m. op., not desig nated f

or publication). Mo re imp or

tantl y , de c lin ing to ob

je c t to a po rt ion of th e S tat e's argume nt is an inhe re ntl y tactica l decision based on the way the trial is unfolding and the tria l strateg y employ ed. Taylor v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 698, 704 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1997, pet. ref' d). Counsel could have made a t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o nn o tt o dr aw a t t e n t i o n t o , o r r e - e n f o r c e t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s ar g u m e n ti nf r o n to f t h e j u r y. Absent a rec ord stating the re asons for c ounsel' s failure to object, we w ill not s econd- g uess counse l throug h hindsight. F ur the r, F ox fa ile d to br ie f or oth e rw ise de mon str a te ho w c ouns e l' s f a ilure to o bje c t to the se statements would have resulted in a dif fer ent outcome. This point of er ror is over

ruled. E. F ail ur e to Obj e c t t o St at e 's U se of t he Wo r d "P r e dat or " During closing argument, the State re fer red to F ox as a "pr edator " six times. Fox contends his counsel' s failure to object to the use of this term c onstitut ed inef fec tive assistance of counse l.15

There are four pr oper a

reas fo r j ury

argument: 1) summation of the evidenc e pre sented at t ri al ; 2 ) r ea s o n ab l e d edu ct i o ndra wn f r o m t h e e v i d en ce ; 3 ) a n s we r t o t h e o p p o s i n g co u n s el 's argument; and 4) a

plea f or law e nforc ement. Jack son , 1 7 S. W.3 d at 67 3. W e have pr e vio us ly explained that the use of the te rm " predator" can be interpre ted as a de scription or deduc tion based on the evidenc e. Sm ith v . S tat e , N o . 0 6

- 0 5
- 0 0 1 4 8

- CR, 2006 WL 3 2 4 6 4 8 7 , a t * 3 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na No v. 10 , 2 00 6, no pe t.) (m e m. o p. , not d e sig nate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; see also Hines

v . S tat e , 144 S.W .3d 90, 95 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2004, no pet.) (court decided failure to object to u se of te rm " pr e dator " duri ng c los ingargume nt n ot i ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e failure to object could have been pa rt of strate g y

not to draw attention to term). Whil e we do not cond o n e t he use of this term and eve n assuming this ar g ument was imp ro pe r, F ox ha s f

a ile d to de mon str a te ho w the a lle g e d de fi c ie nt pe rf or manc e dama g e d h is d e fe ns e
su c h th a t th e re wa s a

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that the jur

y ' s ver dic t w ou ld h a ve be e n d if fe re nt. Th is point of err or is overr

uled. F . F ail ur e to Obj e c t t o P r os e c ut or 's P e r so nal Opini on F ox a sse rt s th a t he wa s d e nie d e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l w he n ther e wa s a fa ilure to object to the prose cu t or' s statements projec ting his per sonal opinion that Fox was guilty . The fo llo wi ngre mark s w e re ma de to t he jur y in c los ingargume nt:

C Our evidenc e isn't perf ect, but I don' t se e how any of y ou could hav e a ny rea sonable doubt.
C Idon' t think any

of y ou have a

ny doubt.
C He ne eds to spend the r est of his life in the penitentiar y .16

C And I

think the only

possible verdict y ou can r eturn is one of g uilt.
C Ido n' t th ink

the re ' s any

re a so na ble doub t on

the e sse nti a l e le me nts in t his case . C And if y ou don' t f ind this person g uilty , then I don' t think just i ce wi l l h ave been done

. The prose cutor may

tell a jury that a convic tion is expected base d on the evidenc e. Murray

v . S tat e , 8 61 S.W. 2d 47 , 54 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 19 93 , pe t. re f' d)

. We b e lie ve the se state me nts amount to a plea

for law enfor ceme nt based on a

rea sonable de duction from the e vidence rathe r than the prosec utor' s persona l opinion on guilt. S e e M c G e e v . Stat e , 6 8 9 S.W .2d 915, 918 & 920–21 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1985, pet. re f' d) (P ro s ec ution's stateme nt, "I will tell y ou something. I f we can' t g et a conviction in that ty pe of situation, we might as well forg et trying to g et the drugpushers c onvicted in Ga l v eston," was a summation of the evidenc e and a proper plea f or law enf orce ment.). Neve rtheless, in McG ee , failure to object to closing argument when the pr osecutor of fer ed a per sonal opinion of the def endant' s g uilt by stating, "You know as well as I do, in y our hea rts, that Don Carols McGe e is g ui l t y , " was he ld not to constit ute ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. 689 S.W. 2d a t 91 9– 21 ; se e Go od

sp e e d v . S tat e , 167 S.W .3d 899, 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pe t.) ; se e als o D oc k

e ry v . S tat e , No. 01-93-00956- CR, 1996 W L32871, at *3 (Te x . App.—Houston [ 1s t D is t. ] J an. 25 , 1 99 6, n o p e t
. ) (no t d esi gnate d fo r pu bl ica ti on ) (Ev en t ho ugh s tat eme nt th at "I pr os e c ute c a se s th a t w e be lie ve the de fe nd ant i s g uil ty " wa s e rr or , it w a s a n is ola te d in c ide nt a

nd did not constitute ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel.).17

As with the other points of er ror, F ox failed to de monstrate that failure to object was not pa rt
o f his counsel' s strateg y . Counsel may have w anted to mitigate attention to the prose cu t o r's
c omm e nts or po ssi bly fe are d the ri sk an ov e rr ule d o bje c tio n f

ro m w hic h th e jur

y mig ht i mpr op e rl y infer the judge ' s ag ree ment with the prosec ution. Fox also failed to demonstrate his defense was p re j u d i ce d i ns u ch a m an n er

t h at t h e j u ry

wo u l d h av e re n d er ed a n o t gu i l t y v er d i ct ab s en t t h e S t at e's comments. This point of error is overrule d. G. F ailure to Object to the State 's Rem arks Regar din g F ox's Attor ney Next, Fox contends t h at the following comments made by the State during closing wer e improper:

C Davis is a good lawy er. H e did a g ood job in this case . He didn' t have much to work with, but he did as g ood as he c ould.
C I ' d like f

o r y o uto n o t g e t s id e tr a c k e d b e c a u s e h e ' s [F o x' s c o u n s e l] g o o d at that.
C Well, I may

chang e my

opinion of the lawy er. I thought he was a

g ood lawy er. Tha

t insult s my

inte l l i gence, and I

hope that it insults y our intelligenc e, eve ry

one of you. C That insults my intelligenc e. They have to come up with something , though. The State ha s a rig ht to respond to ar guments made by defe nse counse l. A revie w of the
rec ord cla rifies that these statements we re m ad e to re spond to Fox's conse nt defe nse. More over,
e ve n if the se state me nts c an b e re a d a s si de ba r r e mark s, we do no t th ink the a bs e nc e of the se state me nts wo uld

have caus ed a

dif fe re nt r e su lt, and

we wi ll n ot s pe c ulate on wh e the r d e fe ns e counsel' s inaction was c ontrary to any possible trial strateg y . Tho ma s v . S tat e , 69 3 S
. W
. 2 d 7, 11F or c ourt re c or d- ke e pin g purp os e s, c a us e numbe rs 03 40 19 0 a

nd 34 01 90 are ma the ma tic a lly 4 the same . T his va

ri anc e is n ot c omp la ine d o f o n a pp e a l. Th is w a s n ot a

n im pr op e r ob jec ti on . I f t

he re c or d w a s a c tua lly

no t a uth e nti c a te d, the n it 5 wo uld have be e n su

bje c t to a he ars ay ob

je c tio n. B ut w e a g re e c ouns e l sh ou ld m a ke a mor e sp e c if

ic objection to prese rve the issue of authe ntication. 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1985, pet. re f' d) (f ailure to objec t to sid ebar rema rks not ineffe ctive assistanc e). H. F ailure to Object to Use of P en P acket D uring Punish m ent P hase Pe n p a c ke ts a

re a dmi ssi ble to sho w a

de fe nd ant' s p ri or

c ri min a l r e c or d if

the y are pr op e rl y authenticated. Cud

dy v . S tat e , 107 S.W .3d 92, 96 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Certification by "the rec ord clerk of the Tex as Department of Criminal J ustice, Institut ional Division . . . constitutes p ro p er au t h en t ication of the c opies of the judg ment and sente nce f ound in a pen pack et. " Id .; se e Re e d v . S tat e , 811 S.W .2d 582, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). F ox a sse rt s th a t hi s c ouns e l' s f a ilure to o bje c t to the a

uth e nti c a tio n of the pe n pa c ke t us e d to enhanc e his sentenc e amounted to ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. The a rg ument is that certifie d copies of judg ments for va rious cause numbers we re attached, but the c ause nu m b er for the ag g ravated ra

pe convic tion used in t h e en h an ceme nt, number 340190, was not included in the 4

c e rt if ic a tio n. Whe n th e State so ug ht t o a dmi t th e pe n p a c ke t, F ox' s d e fe ns e c ouns e l ob je c te d to it

a s h e ars ay , b ut d id n ot o bje c t to the a uth e nti c a tio n o f t

he pe n p a c ke t. 5 Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d that F ox ha d be e n pr e vio us ly c on vic te d in c a us e numbe r 0 34 01 90 in the 185th J udicial District Court of Harr i s C ounty , Texas, of ag g ravated ra pe. Dur ing the19

punishment trial, counsel for Fox a cknowledg ed that he had pr eviously been f urnished a c opy

of the pen pac ket. The pe n packe t c ontained a copy of the c onviction for ag g ravated ra pe in ca use number 340190 from the 185th Judi cial District Court of Ha rris County , Texas. The pe n packe t was ce rtified by an aff idavit of rec ord cle rk L arr y L eF lore, who w as "e mploy ed as the Chairman of Classification and Records f or the Te x as De partment of Criminal J ustice - Corr ectional I nstitut ions Division." L eF lore stated, " Ido here by cer tify that the attac hed information provided on inmate FOX , R OY L E E , TDCJ /BPP# 331714 Cause # 340100, 16989, 12845, 12514 are true and corr ect copies of t he original recor ds now on file in my office maintained in t he re g ula r co ur se of bu sin e ss. " L e F lor e the n atta c he d r e c or ds to h is a ff ida vit that he int e nd e d to authenticate. Ther e wa s no cause number 340100. Instead, a n attache d judgme nt for cause number 34 01 90 , th e a g g ra

vate d r a pe c a us e, was inc lud e d. I t a

pp e ars fr om t

he re c or d th a t L e F lor e sim ply made a cler ical er

ror in stating that cause number 340100 was attached w hen in re ality cause number 340190 was the attache d judgme nt. We do not f ind c ounsel' s conduct de ficient. Eve n if a va rianc e
e xiste d b e tw e e n th e c a

us e numbe r a lle g e d in

the enh ancemen t c ount a nd that on the jud g me nt,
reve rsa l w ou ldbe re qu ir ed o nl y if Fox cou ldsh ow "p rej ud i c i a l s u r pri se. " Ro bin so n v . S

tat e , 739 S.W .2d 795, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Her e, there was no varia nce betwee n the enha

nceme nt alleg ation and the c opy

of the judg ment of convic tion in cause nu m b er 340190. The proper judgme nt of the prior c onviction on Fox was contained in the pe n packe t that was ce rtifi ed by the20

Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice. We do not be lieve it is incumbent on counsel to objec t to a matter that clea rly appea rs to be no more than a ty pog raphic al er

ror. Also, at the punishment phase in fr ont of the trial cour t, J oseph Wil lis, a cer

tified investigator with the specia l prosecution unit, testified that the fing erpr ints he took of Fox in court matched the fing erpr int card a

ttached to the pe n packe t in question. He also testified that the r ecor ds showed that Fox was convicte d of ag g ravated ra pe in Har ris County

in cause number 340 1 9 0 an d re ce ived a twenty -five- y ear

sentenc e on F ebrua

ry 9, 1982. This punishment trial was prese nted to the trial cour t, not a jury . Even if F ox had objec ted to t he ty po g ra ph ic a l e rr or and e ve n if the tr ia l c ourt ha d s us ta ine d th e ob

je c tio n, the State lik e ly

c ou ld have be en g rante d an opportunity to obtain a cor

rec tion of t h i s cleric al er

ror. On the se fa cts, we cannot sa y that counsel' s failur e t o object spec ifically to the authentication of the pen pa cket constituted ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. Se e Ha hn v . S tat e , N o . 0 5-06-00366

- CR , 2 0 0 7 WL 530007, at *1 (Te x . App.—Dallas F eb. 22, 2007, pet. ref ' d) (not desig nated f

or publication) ( when other e vidence o f p re v ious conviction prese nted, fa ilure to object to admissibilit y of pen pa cket during punishment hearingnot ineffe ctive assistance of counsel). This point of err or is overr uled. I. Cum ulative Error F ina lly , F ox argue s that the c umu la tiv e e ff e c t of the fo re g oin g ma tte rs re su lte d in an unf a ir tr ia l. We are to j ud g e the tot a lity of the re pr e se ntatio n and the pa rt ic ula r c ir c ums tanc e s o f e a c h c a se in evaluating the ef

fec tiveness of co u n s el. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. I n this case, we have21

revie wed the e ntire re cord a nd find that, among other things, counsel for F ox filed a motion to allow Fox to testify

without being impea ched, c ited the trial cour t proper a uthority , obtained ruling s from the tr ia l c o u rt, r e qu e s te d an d w a s a ll o w e d a p r e tr ia l h e ar in g o n th e c h a in o f c u s to dy o f evidenc e, prese nted a thoroug h voir dire examination of the jury panel, suc cessf

ully challeng ed seve ral juror s for c ause, c ross-examined the witnesses, obje cted to many of the State' s exhi bits, including the medical history and the SANE rec ords, presented proper jury arguments, and esse ntially acte d in a pr of e ssi on a l and

c omp e te nt m ann e r. We d o n ot f ind the ov e ra ll a c tio ns of

c ouns e l to be de fi c ie nt. Be cause we f

ind the evidenc e fa ctually sufficie nt to support the jury ' s verdict of g uilt and deter mine that Fox had eff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: November 10, 2008 Date D ecide d: November 13, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh