Opinion filed July 23 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 03 26 -CR

____ ____ __ RA MON CA LDE RON GA RC IA, Ap pellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 244th Distric t Court

Ector C ounty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C- 33,037

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Ramon C al d eron G arc ia of drivingwhile intox icated a s a subseque nt of fe ns e and a sse sse d h is p un ish me nt at te n y e ars c on fi ne me nt. We a ff ir m. I

. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts Odessa Police D epar

tment Corporal Ga

ry Potter was on patrol the morning of January 23, 20 06 , whe n he noti c e d a br ow n v an d

ri vin g no rt

h o n th e wr on g sid e of Ad a ms St

re e t. Corporal Potter turne d and followed. He observe d the van cross 11th Stre et, drift back to the rig ht side of Adams St ree t, and cr oss 12th Street. The driver of the van ran a stop sign on 13th Street a nd2

then drifted ba ck to the lef t before stopping on the le ft side of Ada ms St ree t. Corporal Potter pulled in be hind the van and turned on his e merg ency lights. The van’s driver quickly ex ited. Corporal P otter i nstructed the driver to return to his vehicle, but he would not do so. I nstead, he kept

s ay i n g , “ W h a t ?” an d

“ W h a tv e h i c l e ?” Cor po ra l Pot te r a

pp ro a c he d the dr ive r. He wa s sw ay ing , and his e y e s we re re d, blo od sh ot,

a nd g l o s s y . T h e dr i v e r ’ s s p e e c h w a s s l u r r e d , an d h e w a s m u mb l i n g
. C o r p o r a l P o t t e r c o u l d

sme ll a stro n g o d o r o f alc ohol. Corporal Potter identified the dr iver a s Garc ia. Corpora l Pott er a sked Gar cia why

he had stoppe d and wa s told that he did not like people f ollowing him. Gar cia ha d no

re a so nf o r dr i v i n g o nt h e w r o n g s i d e o f t h e r o a d , an d

h e v o l u n t e e r e d

t h a th e h a d

h a d a f e w be e rs
. Corporal Potter believe d Gar cia wa s intox icated, a nd he perf ormed the Horizontal G aze Ny stag mus (HGN ) te s t. G ar c ia

f a il e d

. A ll s ix p o te n ti a l c lu e s o f in to xic a ti o nw e r e p r e s e n t. Co r p o r a l P otter asked G arc ia to perf

orm the wa lk and turn t est and demonstrated it. Garc ia had diff iculty standing during Corporal Potter’s de monstration, and he r efuse d to perfor m it, claiming that it was too cold. Corporal Potter asked Gar cia to pe rfor m a one leg stand test. Gar cia c losed his ey es and c ounted, b u th e w o u l d

n o tl i f to n e f o o tan d c o u l d n o tc o u n tc o r

r e c t l y. Cor po ra l Po tte r p la c e d G arc ia un de r a rr est and as ke d h im f

or a br e a th s a mpl e . G a rc ia

re fu se d. Th e po lic e inv e nto ri e d G arc ia ’s va n, and Cor po ra l Po tte r f

ound an o pe n, c old , a

nd pa rt ia lly full beer bottle on the floorboard. The bott le was not secure d and would have fallen if the van had moved. Gar cia wa s place d in Corpor al Potter’s car
. Once inside, he beg an ac ting unusua lly . For example, he told the office rs to g o ahea d and call the wre cker for his va n – even thoug h the wre cker

w a s a lr e a dy in p la c e
. D u r in g th e r id e to th e ja il , G ar c ia w a s a lt e r n a te ly qu ie t an d b e lliger ent. He asked Corpor al Potter sever al questi ons, some of which made no sense. At the jail, Gar cia wa s g iven the cha nce to r epea

t the field sobriety

tests, but he ref

used to respond. Gar cia testified on his own behalf. He ex plained that he had ha d a 16-ounc e bottle of be er
ear lier that day

while raking outside his house. He we nt to bed at 9:00 p.m. but was awoke n at midnight when a

friend c ame by . The fr iend was a ccompa nied by a g irlfriend, a

nd they watche d television. Garc ia’s fr iend g ot into a fig ht with his girlfrie nd. Eventually , his friend a sked for a ride

. Ga rc ia tr ie d to re fu se be caus e his va n h a d me c ha

nic a l is su e s, bu t he e ve ntu a lly g a ve in. Ga

rc ia dr op pe d th e fr ie nd

of f at a ba r a nd wa s d ri vin g ho me wh e n h e sa

w a po lic e c ar dri ve to ward him

.3

The police car did a quick U-turn behind him; so Gar cia stopped in f ront of another friend’ s house. He a cknowledg ed runninga st op sign but blamed that on his brake s. He a lso testified that he suffe rs fr om s e ve ra l phy sic a l pr ob le ms and th at he w a s ta kin g nume ro us me dic a tio ns . H e bla me d h is inability to drive normally

on the cold we ather

and alc ohol and claimed that the beer bottle found in his van belong ed to the fr iend he dr opped off at a ba r. I I

. Issues Appellant cha lleng es his conviction with three issues, contending that his trial counsel wa s
c on sti tut ion a lly

ine ff e c tiv e and

tha t th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt. I I I

. Ineffec tive Assistance To deter mine if trial counse l rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e, we mus t f ir s t determine w hether Ga rc ia ha s sh ow n th a t c ouns e l’ s re pr e se ntatio n fe ll be low an ob je c tiv e sta

nd ard of re a so na ble ne ss and, if so, then de termine whe ther there is a reasonable probability that the re sult would have bee n differ ent but f

or counse l’s err ors. Strickland v. W ashington , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ). W e m u s ti n d u l ge a strong p resumption that counsel’s c onduct fe ll within t he wide r ang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance , and Ga

rcia must overcome the presumption that, under the circ umstances, the c halleng ed action mig ht be consider ed sound trial strate g y . Sta ffo rd v . S tat e , 8 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 , 5 0 8

- 0 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1991). An alleg ation of ineff ective a ssistance must be firmly founded in the recor d, and the rec ord must a ffirmatively demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Under normal circ umstances, the rec ord on direc t a ppeal will not be su ff ic ie nt t o s ho w that c ouns e l’ s r e pr e se ntatio n w a s so de fi c ie nt a nd so la c kin g a s to ov e rc ome the pre sumption t hat counse l’s representation was rea sonable a nd profe ssional. Bo ne v . S tat e , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Gar cia c ontends that counsel wa s constitutionally ineffe ctive bec ause he repe atedly elicited harmful testimony during Gar cia’ s direc t examination and because he focused the jury ’s attention

on thi s te sti mony

duri ngc los ing argum e nt. Ga rc ia a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e re c or d is sil e nt a s to wh e the r G arc ia

c ho se to t e sti fy

a g a ins t or

purs ua nt to h is c ouns e l’ s le g a l a dv ic e . T he re c or d is , in fac t, silent as to any

conver sations betwee n Gar cia a nd his counsel. There fore , we do not know what Gar cia ever

to ld c o u n s e l o c c u r

r e d th e n ig h t o f

h is ar r e s t; an d , mo s t s ig n if

ic an tl y , w e d o n o t k

now
w h a tG ar c i a

t o l d c o u n s e l d

u r i n g an y c o n v e r s a t i o nc o n c e r n i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y.4

Gar cia points to the following testimony to support his contention that counsel elicited h ar m f u l t e s t i m o n y: Q. The – wer e y ou – did you – had y ou lost y our normal f aculties – y our normal me nta l and

ph y sic a l f

a c ult ie s th a t ni g ht b e c a

us e of a lc oh ol?
A. Sort of. I usually g et like – I don’t have, like, an acc urate balanc e, y ou know, that’s why

I can’ t – that’s why , y ou know, I didn’t take those tests bec ause I didn’t want to all of the su dden fa ll down and he wa s g oing to sa y , y ou’re drunk, – Q. My

question was, did y ou have – [P ROSECUTI ON]: Ithink – J ud ge, I object, he’ s answer ed the

question.
THE COURT: Sustained. [DEFENSE C OUNSEL ]: I ’ll ask y ou ag ain, did y ou lose y our – [P ROSECUTI ON]: I ’ll object to that question.
THE COURT: L et him finish his q u es t i o n
. P l ea s e ask the

question. Q. Were y ou – did the alcohol kee p y ou fr o m driving corr ectly ? Did y our dr i n k i n g a l c o h o l k e e p yo uf r o m dr i v i n g c o r

r e c t l y?
A. Not that night, but ea rlier like I told y ou. Q. Okay . So was there any alcohol that would have ke pt y ou from driving in a n o rm al m an n er

t h at m o rn i n g?
A. Yea

h, probably

and the c old weathe r. Gar cia argues that counsel should ha ve anticipated his unf

avora ble answe rs beca

use Corporal Potter te sti fi e d th a t G arc ia

a dmi tte d at t he scen e that he ha d b e e n d ri nk ingand

be c a us e Ga rc ia him se lf testified that he had had a 16-ounce bottle of beer ear lier that evening . The re cord doe s not support either c ontention. Fi rs t , we cannot ag ree that counsel wa s require d to assume that Gar cia would testify consistently

with Corporal Potter. Second, counsel was not ineffe ctive for asking Gar cia if he wer eCouns el arg ued: 1
I t hink he ha d ful l use of al l of

his f ac ulti es . O f

c ours e, I ca

n arg ue al l of

that a g ai n and a g ai n unti l I ’m blue in th e face an dI’m su re M r. Bru ce is goi n g to w al k up he re an d tal k ab o u t t h e co n fessi o n th atMr . Garci a ju st gave y ou on th e sta

nd , I guess not once, bu t tw ice a s to w heth er he w as intoxicated or w heth er h e h ad lost th e norm al use of his m ental and p hy sical f aculties.
The on ly thin g I can argue is that Mr. G arcia did no t un derstand m e and c ou ld not follow m y ve rbal ques tions jus t l ik e he coul dn’t that ni g ht be ca use I don’t k

now if it’s a proble m

w ith his – ei the r the w ay that I pose d the que st ions or w

het her he, in f

ac t, w as g iv ing y ou a

c onf es si on, I jus t don’ t k

now , l adi es and g ent le m en. I w ould ha

v e to s ay it ’s s urpr is ing to m e, a s it is , I ’m s ure , t o a ll of

y ou. 5 impaired. We do not know if counse l knew Garcia would testify that he had had a be er e arlier in the

e ve nin g
. I f thi s wa s a surp ri se , s ound tr ia l strate g y

re qu ir e d f

oll ow -u p b e c a us e the pr os e c uto r w ou ld almost c erta inly have done so, and there is no reason to c onclude that Ga rcia ’s testimony

would have been a ny differ ent. Even if c ounsel knew that Gar cia would admit dr inking one beer ear lier in the evening , this would not si g nal the subseque nt impairment admiss i on. Gar cia testified that he had had the be er a

round 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. Corpo ra l P o t ter stopped him seve ral hours later at

a pp ro xima te ly

1:0 0 a .m. Ev ide nc e of

a sin g le be e r e arl ier in th e even ingmig ht h e lp e xpla in Cor po ra l Po tter’s test imo ny that he sme lle d a lc oh ol, and it w ou ld b e c on sis te nt w ith Cor po ra l Po tte r’ s tes tim on y that Garc ia ha d admit te d to dri nk ing

. B ut o ne be e r w ou ld n ot o rd ina ri ly

cause impairment sever al hours later

. Be caus e we do not know what Ga rcia and his counsel discusse d conce rning his testimony or what Garc ia told his counsel happene d t h e n i gh t o f his arr est, we c annot conc lude that counse l kn e w G arc ia

wo uld e sse nti a lly c on fe ss an d, the re fo re , cann ot co nc lud e c ouns e l w a s c on sti tut ion a lly i n ef fe ct i v e. On ce Ga rc i a t es t i fi edas h e d i d , co u n s el wa s fo rc ed t o ac kn o wl ed ge i td u ri n g h i s cl o s i n g. Sugg esting that Gar cia may have misunder stood the question was not unrea sonable. 1 But e ven if we assume counse l’s repr esentation was constitutionally defic ient, the re cord does not establish the requisite harm beca use the e vidence of Ga

rcia ’s g uilt was overwhe lming. See W as hingto n v . S

tat e , 7 71 S.W. 2d

53 7, 54 5- 46 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ) (e ve n if co un se l’ s f a ilure to object wa s outside the ra n ge of pr ofessional c ompetent assistance , overw helming e vidence of de fe nd ant’ s g uil t ma de thi s e rr or ha rm le ss)

. I f Ga

rc ia ha d not te sti fi e d, the jur y wo uld have ha d o nly Corporal Potter’s unr efute d testimony that Gar cia was driving on the wrongside of the r oad, that he

ran a stop sign, and that he parked on the wr ong side of the r oad. The jury would have ha d no respon s e to Corpora l Pott er’ s testimony that Gar cia smelled of

alcohol, wa s unsteady , failed the6

H GN t e s t , w o u l d

n o to r c o u l d n o t p e r f

o r m t h e o th e r f

i e l d s o b r i e t y t e s t s , an d w a s a c t i n g p e c u l i a r l y. Gar cia ha s not show n a re asonable probability that the jury

would have r eturne d a diffe rent ve rdict if it had hea

rd only this evidence . I ssue One is ove rruled.

I V. Sufficiency of the E

videnc e Gar cia argues that the evidenc e was leg ally and fac tually insufficient beca use there was no evidenc e of his spec ific bl ood alcohol leve l, but there wa s evidenc e that he suf fer ed fr om numerous health proble ms a

nd was taking a var iety

of pre scription medications. We will apply the following well-re cog nized standards of r eview to a ppellant’s suff

iciency challenge s. To deter

mine if the evidenc e is leg ally sufficie nt, we must revie w all of the evidence in the light most favor able to the verdic t and deter

mine whether

any rational trier

of fac t c ould ha

ve found the essential elements of the cr ime bey ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 (1 97 9) ; J ac k so n v . S tat e , 17 S.W. 3d

66 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). To de te rm ine if the e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly su ff ic ie nt, we mus t revi e w a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e in

a n e u tr a l l ig h t a

n d d e te r mi n e w h e th e r

th e e v id e n c e s u

p p o rti n g the

ve rd ic t is so we a k th a t th e ve rd ic t is c le arl y wr on g and

manif e stl y un jus t or wh e the r t

he ve rd ic t is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conflicting evidenc e. W ats on v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). Ga rc ia is c or re c t th a t th e re is n o ev id ence of his sp e c if

ic blo od a lc oh ol c on te nt. Ga

rc ia is incorre ct to conclude that any blood alcohol leve l evidence was re quired. The indictment alleg ed that Gar cia wa s intox icated: [B]y rea son of introduction of alcohol into his body , while he wa s operating a motor ve hic le in a

pu bli c pla c e , to w it, a

pu bli c str e e t in

sa id c ounty , a

nd the sa id d e fe nd ant, by rea son of such introduction of alcohol into his body , did not then and there have the no rm a l us e of

his me nta l f

a c ult ie s, and

he di d no t have t

he no rm a l us e of

his phy sical fa culties while so oper ating and driving said motor vehicle. This indictment did not require proof of a spe cific blood a lcohol content. T he State wa s require d t o p r o v e i mp a i r

m e n tc a u s e d b y a l c o h o l ; an d , e v e nw i t h o u t r e g ar d t o G ar c i a ’ s t e s t i m o n y, Corporal Potter’s testimony was leg ally

and fa ctually

sufficie nt to establish this

. Corporal Potter’s descr iption of Garc ia’s driving , the smell of alcohol on Gar cia, the r esult of the HGNtest, Garc ia’s sta te me n t s an d b e h a v i o r a t t h e s c e n e an d w h i l e e n r o u t e t o t h e j a i l , an d an o p e n b e e r b o ttl e in Gar cia’ s van that had a

ppare ntly been se t down when Ga

rcia stopped, sufficie ntly established that7

Gar cia wa s driving while impaired due to alcohol consumption. This result was not alter ed whe n the e vid e nc e of Ga

rc ia ’s he a lth pr ob le ms and me dic a tio ns wa s c on sid e re d. Th e jur y wa s e nti tle d to

c on sid e r t his e viden ce wh e n, fo r e xamp le , it re vie we d G arc ia ’s pe rf

or manc e on the fi e ld s ob ri e ty te sts , b ut t

his e vid e nc e wa s n ot s o c omp e lling th at th e jur y c ou ld h a ve on ly

re tur ne d a n a c qu itt a l. I ssues Two and T hree are overr uled. V. Holding The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

RI CK STRANGE

JUSTI CE

J uly 23, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.