### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00472- CR

Tr ac y Ho llo m an, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 30311 64, H ONO RAB LE BO B PERK INS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Trac y

Holloman g uilty

of ag g ravated s exual assault. See T e x. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004-05). The c ourt assesse d punishment at twenty -eig ht y ear s in prison.

Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp oin te d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no meritorious g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tat e , 57 3 S.W.2 d 807 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tat e , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tat e , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1969).2 I n h is b ri e f, c ou

ns e l ex pl ain ed w hy , i n h is pro fes si on al o pi ni on , t he ev id ence i s l egall y
and fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio n, the tr ia l c ourt did no t e rr in o ve rr uli ngde fe ns e
c ouns e l’ s Batson objections, and de fense counsel re ndere d eff ective a ssistance. Appe llant filed a
wr itt e n r e sp on se to c ouns e l’ s b ri e f c ha lle ng ingthe se c on c lus ion s.

The c omplaining witness testified that she met appe llant at a nig htclub and ac cepte d his of fer of a ride home. Acc ording to he r, appellant drove to a residential neig hborho o d and
se xua lly a ssa ult e d h e r i n th e c ar. Th e com pl ain ant ’s de sc ri pti on of he r a ssa ila

nt g ive n to investigators soon afte r t he assault matched appellant in some respe cts, but not in others. The DNA profile of fing erna il scraping s taken fr om t h e complaina nt matched a

ppellant’s DNA . Appellant testified that he wa s not at the nig htclub, but that he had br iefly encounte red the complainant as she walked a lone i n the neighborhood and in appar ent di stress. He said she pushed him away when he tried to help her. Having revie wed the evidenc e and a pplied the appr opriate standa rds of re view, we ag ree with appellate c ounsel that the re solution of conflicts in the evidenc e was for the jury , and that the evidenc e is le g ally and fac tually sufficie nt to sustain the g uilty verdic t. See J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 32 4 (1 97 9) (l e g a l su ff ic ie nc y ); Gr iff in v. Sta te , 6 14 S.W. 2d

15 5, 15 8- 59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) ( le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y ); Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Te x . C ri m . App. 2004) (fa ctual suff

iciency ). Appellant’s tria l counsel objec ted to the prosec utor’s use of per emptory strikes ag ainst three bla ck venir e member s. See B atson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The State offe red
ra c e -n e utr a l e xplanatio ns fo r t he str ike s ba se d on ans we rs the pa ne lis ts g a ve duri ng vo ir dir e . Th e se3

e xplanatio ns we re no t c ha lle ng e d at tr ia l and are su pp or te d by the re c or d. We a g re e wi th a pp e llate counsel that the c ourt did not err by overr uling the Batson ob

je c tio ns . Appellant complains that trial c ounsel did n ot vigor ously pursue the Batson objections. He a lso sugg ests that counsel should have called e x pert witnes ses to rebut the State’ s experts. Nothing in the trial rec ord reve als counsel’s strateg y with reg ard to these matters. In the absenc e of suc h a re cord, a ppellant ca

nnot in this direc t appea l overc ome the strongpresumption that his trial counsel’s strateg y was re asonable from counse l’s perspe ctive at trial. Se e Ma lle tt v . S tat e , 65 S.W .3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

We h a v e r e v ie w e d

th e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l’ s b r ie f , an d a p p e ll an t’ s p r o s e r e s p o n s e . We fi nd no thi ng in the re c or d that mig ht argua bly su pp or t the a pp e a l. Couns e l’ s mot ion

to w ith dr a w i s g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: August 17, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh