### NUM BER 13-07- 0025 4-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
TOMM Y L EE A GUIR RE, 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 36 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of Sa n Patricio C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Tommy Lee Ag uir re , app eal s from a first deg re e felony co nv ic ti on of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, co cai ne, w it h the i ntentto del iv er . See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 4 8 1

. 1 1 2 ( a ) , ( c ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. A g u i r r e s o u g h t t h e i mp o si ti on of communi ty

se rv ic e from the jur

y dur ing the p uni shmentphas e of tr ial , butthe jur y as ses sed2

puni shmentat 25 y e a rs’ i m p ri sonmentand cour t c ost s. By

one is sue, Ag uir re co ntends that he w as deni ed effectiv e as si sta nce of couns el dur ing the puni shmentphas e of tr ial becau se tes ti mony eli ci ted by hi s t ri al couns el caus ed th e j ur y to sent ence him to pr is on
r at he r t ha n c om mu ni ty

s up er v i s i on . W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Ag uir re w as ind ic ted b y a S an Pat ri ci o g ra nd j ur y f o r p o ssess ion of coc ain e w it h int ent t o di str ibu te. Id

. Before tr ial , Ag uir re fil ed a sw or n “ appl ica tion for communi ty supe rv ision f rom th e jury .” See T EX
. C ODE OF C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12, § 4 (d )( 3) , ( e) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. In his appl ic ati on, A g uir re av er re d that he had “n ev er before been
conv ic ted o f a felony

i n the Sta te of Tex as. ” The jur y found Ag uir re g uil ty of the c harg ed off ense. At t he puni shmentphase of tri al, the Stat e w aiv ed its opening arg ument an d di d not off er any new ev ide nce. Ag uir re ’s tri al coun sel al so w aiv ed open ing arg ument du ri ng the puni shmentphas e, bu t c all ed sev er al w it ness es to tes ti fy. Ag uir re ’s tr ial co unsel first cal led Rob erto S . R amon, a pr obati on officer , t o tes ti fy about the c ommunit y su per v is ion prog ra m and i ts eli g ibi li ty

r eq uirements

. The defense al so cal led Mi ke Me ji as, the lea d i nv est ig ator in the c ase, to tes ti fy about w hether Ag uir re had pr ev iou sl y been conv ic ted o f a felony

. The thi rd defense w it ness w as Ag uir re . On directex aminat ion , Ag uir re tes ti fied th at he h ad n ot be en convi cted of a felon y in T exas or any oth er state ; howev er, Aguirre also tes ti fied on directex aminat ion thathe h ad prev iou sl y been pla ced on communi ty super v is ion for mi sdemeano r poss ess ion of mar ihu ana in 2005. Ag uir re furth er tes ti fied to be ing i ncar cerated at t he San Pat ri ci o C ounty j ail for a pprox imat ely

120 day s p ri or to t he tr ial

.3

Bef ore the Sta t e c ro s s -e x am ined Aguirre, th e trial court he ld a ben ch con feren ce re g a r d i n g o n e o f t h e s e v e r a l mo t i o n s i n l i mi n e t h a t A g u i r r e h a d fi l e d a t t h e o u t s e tof the tr ial

. The Stat e w anted to pu rs ue a li ne of q uest ion in g r eg ar din g Ag uir re 's pr ev iou s conv ic ti ons and fail ur e to ma ke a c o urt app ear ance in Nov ember 2006. Ag uir re ’s tr ial
couns el obj ect ed and arg ued that suc h ev ide nce w as hig hly pr eju dic ial and "d[i d] no t add any thi ng to the j ur

y [i n the ir dete rmi nati on] of w hether or not [Ag uir re ] s houl d be cons ide re d for probati on." The tr ial co urt per mitt ed th e State to purs ue the ques ti oni ng because the def end ant testif ied th at h e wa s incarcerate d, an d the trial court state d tha t the "juryis enti tl ed to an e x pla nati on of w hy [he w as] i n j ail ." Du r i n g cross -e x aminat ion , Ag uir re tes ti fied to v iol ati ng hi s mi sdemeano r communi ty supe rv ision term s multip le time s by(1) l eaving Bee Count y , (2) fa iling to rep ort to his pr obati on officer , and ( 3) fail ing four ur ina ly si s t est s b y tes ti ng pos it iv e for mari huana a nd
coc ain e. Ag uir re al so tes ti fied to mis si ng hi s a ppoi nted cour t dat e for the i ndi ctmenti n the ins tant cas e i n Aug ustand on N ov ember 6, 2006. Ag uir re tes ti fied to miss in g the Nov ember

co urt dat e due t o bei ng deta ine d by l aw enforc ement offici als bec ause a fri end and pas seng er

i n a c ar Ag uir re w as in had a bag of coc ain e tha t w as d isc o vered by the aut horities. Ag uirre then testif ied to bein g arrested on Novemb er 25, 2 006 , w hen a Mathis Police Depa rtme nt of

f icer a rrested him while h e w as put ting gas in his v ehicle. Aguirre also tes ti fied to ti mely

appear ing i n c our

t fifteen o r si x teen ti mes prev iou sl y and cl aimed he now realiz ed h is "big mistake" byusing drugs. II. D I S CUS S I ON In a si ng le is sue, Agui rre contends that the jury w oul d hav e asses sed a di ff er ent a nd
more fav or abl e puni shmenti f he had been prov ide d w it h eff ect iv e ass is tanc e of couns el4

a tt h e p u n is h m e n tp h a s e . S p e c if ic a ll y, A gu ir re a ll e ge s t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l wa s in e f fe c t ive for allow ing h im to testif y and , w hich subjected him to cross-ex am inatio n led to his tes ti mony

co ncer nin g hi s p re v iou s c onv ic ti ons and prev iou s fai lures to ap pear i n c our t. A . St and ard o f Rev iew T h e ri gh tt o co u n s e l g u a ra n t e e d b y t h e S ixt h A m e n d m e n tis t h e r ig h tt o e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel

. Str ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S. 668, 686 ( 1984)

. The const itution al rig ht to ef fective assistance of coun sel me rely insures th e rig ht to reason ably eff ect iv e as si sta nce. See, e.g., R ober tso n v . St ate , 187 S.W .3d 475, 483 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2006)

. The r ig ht do es not mean er ro rl ess co unsel w hose compet encyo r acc ur acy of
re pr esent ati on i s t o be jud g ed by hi ndsi g ht. Id. In reviewin g cl aims of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el, w e appl y the tw o- pr ong Str ic kl and test to det ermin e w het her assistance o f coun sel w as so de fective as to require
re v ersal of the d e f e n d ant’ s c onv ic ti on. Str ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7. The Str ic kl and test appl ies to cl aims of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el at all phas es of the tr ial

. Her nandez
v. State , 9 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 1
- 7 2 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). T o e s t a b li s h in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel under the Str ic kl and test, app ellant must p rov e by a prep ond eran ce of t he ev ide nce that (1 ) his tr ial co unsel 's r epr esent ati on w as defici ent i n tha t i t fell bel ow the s tandard of pr ev ail ing professi onal nor ms; and ( 2) there is a reaso nabl e probabi li ty that , but for co unsel 's defic ien cy , t he r esul t of the tr ial w oul d have b e e n d if f er ent. Str

ic kl and, 466 U .S. at 68 7- 94. Fur ther more, al leg ati ons of ineffectiv e assi sta nce of couns el must be fir mly founded in the record, w ith the record af f irmatively

dem onst rating t he a lleged inef fectiveness. Thom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999). O n di re ct appeal , a5

re v iew ing courtindul g es a str ong presu mpti on that couns el' s conduc t f ell w it hin the w ide
ra ng e of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. Id. at 81 3- 14. If ther e i s a t l east the possib ility

that the con duc t c o u ld h ave been legi tima te trial strategy, the rev iew ing court must defer t o c ounse l' s d eci si on and deny reli ef o n a n i n e f

fecti v e as si sta nce of couns el cl aim on di re ct appeal

. Id

. B. C hal len ge to In ef

fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel Ag uir r e c o n t e n d s t h a th i s c o u n s e l w a s i n e ffe c t i v e w h e n h e c a l l e d A g u i r r e t o the sta nd and int ro duced ev ide nce of a pr ior co nv ic ti on. W e di sag re e. Ag uir re co mpli ed w it h the appl ic abl e r eg ula ti ons and made a ti mely appl ic ati on to the j ur y r eq ues ti n g c o m m uni ty su per v is ion

. See C ODE OF C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12 (d)(3), (e) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Defense coun sel’s q uest ioning of Of f icer Ramo n prop erly infor med the jur

y of the communi ty

super v is ion elig ibi li ty

r eq uirements

. Defense co unsel attempt ed to q uest ion M eji as re g ar din g Ag uir re ’s cr imi nal hi st o ry in order to pr ov ide the
ev ide nce to t he j ur

y thatAg uir re di d nothav e any pr ior felony co nv ic tio n s su ch that he
w oul d be ine li g ibl e f o r co m m uni ty su per v is ion

. See i

d. ar t. 42.12 (d )( 2)

. The Stat e obj ect ed on the b asi s o f hears ay , and the obj ect ion w as sus tai ned. Def ense coun sel the n called on Aguirre to esta blish tha t he h ad n ot be en p rev iously convicted of

a felon y , in order to est ablish his eligibili ty for com mu nity supe rv ision. Bef ore cross -e x aminat ion , Ag uir re ’s counsel r eass erted h is pr e- tr ial moti on i n l imi ne to pr ev ent t he Stat e from i ntroduci ng ev ide nce of Ag uir re ’s pr ev iou s fai lure to appear in cour t s uch that itw oul d pr eju dic e the j ur y ; th e c our

t al low ed th e St ate t o proceed w it h the l ine of q u e s ti oni ng . The Stat e’s l ine of q uest ion ing ex posed Ag uir re ’s mul ti ple probati on v iol ati ons and his prev iou s f ail ur es to appear in court. On appeal , Ag uir re does not take iss ue w it h6

the court’s ruling, but only challenges his def ense coun sel’s ef fectiveness i n allowi ng him t o t e s t ify. After re v iew ing the re cord, w e canno t say defense couns el' s re pr esent ati on attr ial
w as de f icient such that it fe ll be low t he stan dard o f

prevaili ng profession al norm s. Aguirre’s cont ent ions f ail t o rebu t the st rong presum ption that def ense coun sel’s cond uct f ell w ithin the w ide ra ng e of r eason abl e personal as si sta nce. See T hom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 813- 14. Defense co unsel ca ll ed Ag uir re to the s tand to prov ide ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng that he had no pr ev iou s fel ony co nv ic ti ons and w as eli g ibl e for communi ty su per v is ion

. Pr ior to t ri al and cross -e x aminat ion , ass erted sev er al moti ons in li mine in an attemptto pr ev ent the S tate from i ntroduci ng ev ide nce of Ag uir re ’s cr imi nal hi sto ry , i ncl udi ng hi s p re v iou s failures to a ppe ar in court. Def ense coun sel’s decision to call Aguirre to th e stan d ap pea rs to b e a l eg it imat e tr ial st ra teg y to pursue communi ty

su per v is ion

. See Navej

ar v. Sta te , 730 S.W .2d 121 , 125 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1987 , pet . ref ’d ) (provi ding tha t coun sel’s deci si on to hav e defendant tes ti fy and als o ex pose defendant’ s prev iou s f elo ny co nv ic ti ons in o rd e r t o b e “u p f ro n t ” wi t h t h e ju ry wa s le gi t im a t e t ri a l s t ra t e gy)

. Ag uir re ’s tes ti mony

es tabl is hed t hat h e had no pr ior f e lo n y co nv ic ti ons. C ounse l coul d hav e al so bel iev ed th a t h is m o tions in li mine coul d hav e pr ev ented the l ine of q uest ion ing aboutthe pr ev iou sl y mis sed cour

t app ear ances . Beca use ther e i s a pos si bil it y that the c onduc t w as leg it imat e tr ial st ra teg y , w e mustdefer to couns el' s deci si on and deny
re li ef on an i nef

f e ct ive ass is tanc e of coun sel cl aim on di re ct appeal

. See T hom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 813- 14; see als o Her nandez v. Sta te, 84 S.W .3d 26, 3 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2006, pet. re f’d) ( findi ng v iab le tr ial strateg y if ther e is a pla usi ble ex pla nati on th at c ounse l cal led defendant to testi fy in order to fully disc los e past mi sdeed s a nd arg ue defendant had7

reforme d and would be an app ropriate co mm unity supervisi on ca ndid ate ). Ag uirre’s sole is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

____________________ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.