Each of the six c ou nts of ag grav ated sex ual assa ult with a c hild alleg ed in th e indictme nt in Cause N o. 1 1-0 7-0 01 57 -CR 1 cha rg ed appe lla

nt w ith a dif

f er ent of f ens e under

T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 22. 021(a )( 1)( B) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008), and the tw o c ounts of inde ce ncy

w ith a chi ld a lle g ed dif

f er ent of f ens es unde r T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 21. 11 (Ve rnon 2003)

. Opinion filed Jan uary22 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### Nos . 11 -0 7- 00 15 7- CR & 11 -0 7- 00 15 8- CR

____ ____ __ JOHN JA COB RO US SEA U, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , Ap pellee

On App eal from the 244th Distric t Court

Ector C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. C- 33,288 & C-33,289

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
These a p p e a ls ar is e f

r o m a s in g le tr ia l w h e r e in Jo h n Ja c o b Ro u s s e a u w a s c o n v ic te d of mul tip le of

fe ns e s o f a g g ra

vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d a nd ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d. I n Ca

us e No. 11-07-00157- CR, appellant wa s char g ed with six counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and two counts of indec ency

with a child with reg ard to a child victim r efe rre d to in the indictment as “C.I .” 1 The jury convicted a

ppellant of all of the alleg ed counts. The jury assessed a

ppellant’s punishment at confinement in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice for a ter m of ninety -nine y ear s eac h on the first and se cond counts of ag g ravated s exual assault; for a term ofEach of the nin e c ou nts of ag grav ated sex ual assa ult with a child allege d in the ind ictm ent in Cause No. 11 -07 -00 15 8-CR 2 charge d app ellant w ith a diff erent offen se u n der Section 22. 02 1(a)(1)(B), and th e tw o cou nts of indecency w ith a child alleg ed dif f er ent of f ens es unde r S ec tion 21.11. 2 six ty y ear s eac h on the t hird, fourth, fifth, and si x th counts of agg ravated s exual assault; and for a term of twe nty

y ear s eac h on both counts of indece ncy with a child. I n Cause No. 11- 07-00158-CR, appellant was char g ed with nine counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and two c ounts of indece ncy with a child with reg ard to a child victim r ef

er re d to in the indictment as “C.H.” The jury acquitted a ppellant of the se cond, four th, fifth, and six th counts of 2 ag g ravated sexual assault. The jury convicted a

ppellant of

th e r e ma iningcounts of ag g ravated sexual assault and both counts of inde cenc y with a child. The jury

assessed a

ppellan t ’s punishment at confine ment in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of C riminal J ustice for a ter m of six ty y ear s eac h on the first, third, seventh, eig hth, and ninth counts of ag g ravated sexual assault and for a term of twe nty

y ear s eac h on both counts of indece ncy with a child. The trial c ourt order ed that all of a ppellant’s sente nce s run concurre ntly . Appellant

c ha lle ng e s h is c on vic tio ns in t hr e e iss ue s. We a ff

ir m. Factual Back

ground C.I . and C.H. were appellant’s st epdaug hters. C.I

. was six y ear s old at the time of the alleg ed of fe ns e s and C.H . w a s e ig ht. C.I . te sti fi e d th a t a pp e lla nt t ou c he d h e r “ bu tt” and “ fr on t” “ pr ivate
s p o t s ” w i t h h i s h a n d

an d “ h i s p r i v a t e s p o t ” a

l o to f t i m e s
. A nur s e e x a m i n e r t h a te x a m i n e d

C

. I. found th r e e w e ll

- h e a le d

te ar s o f C. I

. ’ s h y me nth a t s h e te s ti f

ie d c o u ld o n ly b e c a u s e d b y v a g in al penetr ation. C.H . te sti fi e d th a t a

pp e lla nt s e xua lly a ssa

ult e d he r on nume ro us oc c a sio ns by tou c hin g “ his private pa

rt” with her

“private par

t” and he r “butt.” She als o testified that appe llant touched her private pa rt and he r butt with his hand and that one occa sion he touched he r private with his mout h. C.H. further

testified that appellant rubbed her private and her butt with a “f ake pr ivate boy

part.” An aly sis We note at the outset that appe llant does not challeng e the s u ff i ci ency of the e vidence

su pp or tin g his c on vic tio ns . In h is f ir st i ssu e , a

pp e llant c on te nd s th a t th e pr os e c uto r i mpr op e rl y commented dur ing c losing a rg ument on his f

ailure to te stify

. A comment on a de fenda nt’s failure to testify offe nd s b o t h t he Te x as and U nited States Consti tutions, as well as Texas statutory law. U. S. C O N ST
. AME ND
. V; T EX
. C O N ST
. art . I , § 10 ; T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 38.08 (V ernon3

20 05 ). A p ro se c uto r’ s c omm e nt a mou nts to a n im pe rm iss ibl e c omm e nt o n a de fe nd ant’ s f

a ilure to testify only if, when viewed from the jury ’s standpoint, the comment is manifestly intended to be, or is of such c hara cter

that a ty pical jury would natura lly

and nec essar ily

take it to be , a comment on the def endant’ s failur e t o testify

. Cru z v . S tate , 225 S.W .3d 546, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Bu sta ma nte v . S

tate , 48 S.W .3d 761, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant challeng es the following argument made by the prosec utor during cl o s i ng
argume nt: Yo u te ll m e wh o h a s a

re a so n to lie he re tod ay ? W ho is the on ly pe rs on that ha s a rea son to lie in thi s courtroom, in any statement they

g ive or an y

b o d y that testifies fo r t he m? The y

are sittin g ri g ht o ve r t

he re (i nd ic a tin g ) a

nd [ap pe lla nt] s tart e d it

a ll off with that stateme nt he g ave to Gr issom and Trujillo. Appellant’s tria l counsel did not object to the prose cutor’s a rg ument at the time that it was made

. When a def

endant fails to object to a jury argument or fails to pursue a n objection to a jury

argument to an adverse ruling, he forf eits his rig ht to complain about the jury argument on appea l. Cockrell v. Sta te , 9 33 S.W. 2d

73 , 8 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Thus , a pp e lla nt w a ive d th is i ssu e fo r a

pp e llate revie w. Even if tr ial counsel ha d prese rved this complaint, howeve r, we conclude that the cha lle ng ed

argume nt d id n ot c on sti tut e an im pe rm iss ibl e c omm e nt o n a pp e lla nt’ s f a ilure to tes tif

y a t tr ia l. Appellant off

ere d into evidence a videotape of a le ng thy statement that he g ave to De puties Christina G r is s o m a

n d D a v id T r u ji ll o w h e r e in

h e d e n ie d

c o mm itti n g th e c h ar g e d

o f f e n s e s
. T h e c halleng ed argument clea

rly rela tes to appellant’s state ments to the deputies rathe r than a comment on his failure to t e sti fy a t tr ia l. T he pr os e c uto r’ s ar g ume nt i n th is c a se is a na log ou s to the argume nt r e vie we d in Cruzwher ein the prosecutor’s argument addre ssed a wr itten statement from the de fenda nt that was offe red into evide nce. Cruz , 225 S.W .3d at 549-50. Appe llant’s first issue is overrule d. I n h is s e c on d is su e , a

pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in a dmi tti ngState ’s Exhi bit No. 12 into evidence

. The challeng ed ex hibit consisted of a manilla envelope containing a miniature dildo, two packag es of c ondoms, and an adult mag azine. Appellant’s tria l counsel objec ted to the exhibi t under T EX
. R. E V ID
. 40 3 o n th e ba sis th a t it s p ro bativ e va lue wa s o utw e ig he d b y its prejudicia l effe ct. We disag ree
. I n revie wing the trial cour t’s decision on the a dmission of evidence , appellate courts use the abuse of discretion standa rd. Tor re s v . S tate , 71 S.W. 3d 75 8, 76 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Burden v. Sta te , 55 S.W .3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The t ri al co u rt’s ruling will not be reve rsed4

unless that ruling falls outside the zone of reasonable disag ree ment. Torres , 71 S.W .3d at 760; B u r den , 55 S.W .3d at 615. When a par ty objects to the admission of evidenc e on the ba sis of Rule 403, the trial cour

t is required to ba lance the probative value a g ainst the potential for pr ejudice. Lon g v . S tate , 823 S.W .2d 259, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A Rule 403 balanc ing test includes the fo llo wi ngfa c tor s: ( 1) the inh e re nt p ro bativ e fo rc e of the pr off ered it em of

e vid e nc e a lon g wi th (2 ) t he pr op on e nt’s need fo r t hat e vid e nc e a g a ins t ( 3) any te nd e nc y of the e vid e nc e to s ug g e st decision on an imprope r basis, (4) any tendenc y of the e vidence to c onfuse or distract the jury from the main iss u es , (5 ) any

tendenc y of the e vidence to be g iven undue we ight by a jury that has not been e quipped to evaluate the pro b ative for ce of the evidenc e, and ( 6) the likelihood that prese ntation of the e vidence will consume an inordinate amount of time or mer ely re p ea t evidenc e alr eady admitted. Gi

gli ob ian c o v . S

tate , 210 S.W .3d 637, 641-42 & n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The rule s of evide nce f

avor the admission of releva nt evidenc e and c arr

y a pre sumption t hat re levant evide nce is more probative than pre judicial. J

on es v . S tate , 944 S. W

. 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 5 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When determining whether evidenc e is admissible under Rule 403, we do not consider just whethe r the e vid e nc e is m or e pr e jud ic ia l th an p ro bat iv e; w e c on sid e r whe the r t he pr ob a tiv e va lue is substantially

outweig hed by

the dang er of unfair pr ejudice. Ga rc ia v . S tate , 201 S.W .3d 695, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). I n Caus e N o
. 1 1 -0 7 -0 0 1 5 8 -C R , t h e e i gh th an d n i n t h aggr av at eds ex u al as s au lt counts charg ed

a pp e lla nt w ithpe netr a tin g the fe ma le se xua l or g an a nd anu s o f C .H . w ithan o bje c t. A s se t f or th above, C.H. te sti fi ed t h at appellant sex ually assaulted he r with a “ fake private boy part.” Acc ording ly , the miniature dildo possessed sig nificant probative value. The prejudicia l value of the adult mag azine contained in the e x hibit is limit ed beca use there was other evidenc e that appellant and his spouse pos sessed pornogr aphy in their home. F inally , the pre sence of condoms in a mar ried couple’ s home would not rea dily appea r to be pre judicial. We c onclude that the trial cour t did not

a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de te rm ini ngthat th e pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t of the ite ms d id n ot s ub sta nti a lly outweig h their probative value. Appe llant’s second issue is over ruled. Appellant alleg es ineff

ective a ssistance of tr ial counsel in his third is s u e. T o deter mine whether appellant’ s trial counsel render ed inef fec tive assistance at trial, we must first determine whether appellant has shown that counsel’s r epre sentation fell below a n objective standa

rd of

re a s o n a b l e n e s s an d , i f s o , t h e n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e re su lt5

would have be en diffe rent but for co u nsel’s er

rors. W igg ins v . S

mi th , 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Strickland v. W

ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 (1 98 4) ; An dr e ws v . S tate , 159 S.W .3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 05 ); Tho mp so n v . S

tate , 9 S.W .3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). W e m u s t i ndulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the w ide ra ng e of r easona

ble profe ssional assistance, and an a ppellant must ov e r c o me th e p r e s u mp ti on that, under the circ umstances, the c halleng ed ac tion might be considere d sound trial strateg y . Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 9; Ton g v . S tate , 25 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). “[C] ounsel is strongly presumed to have re ndere d adequate assistance and made all signific ant dec isions in the ex erc ise of reasonable profe ssional judgme nt.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690. An alleg ation of ineffe ctive assistance must be firmly founded in the rec ord, and the record must aff

irmatively

demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. Under normal circumstance s, the record on dire ct appe al will not be sufficie nt to show that counsel’s repr esentation was so d ef i cient and so lacking as to overc ome the pre sumption t hat counse l’s conduct wa s rea sonable a nd profe ssional. B o n e v
. S t ate , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Rare ly

will the rec ord on direc t appea l contain sufficient information to permit a r eviewing court to fa irly

evaluate the mer its of such a ser ious alleg ation. Id

. Ap pe lla n t a l l e g e s f

i v e i n s t an c e s w h e r e h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s c o n d u c t w a s d e f

i c i e n t

. T h e fi rs t instance involves tria l counsel’s fa ilure to object to the prosecutor’s jury argument that we a ddresse d in t he fi rs t is su e . A s n ote d a

bo ve , th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to o bje c t w a s o f n o c on se qu e nc e be c a us e the pr os e c uto r’ s argum e nt d id n ot c on sti tut e an im pe rm iss ibl e c omm e nt o n a pp e lla nt’ s f a ilure to testify

. To show ineffe ctive assistance of counsel ba sed on the fa ilure to object duringtrial, appe llant must show the tr ial court would have committed error in overrulingthe objection. Ex pa rteW hite , 160 S.W .3d 46, 53 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). Acc ording ly , trial counsel’ s failure to object to the

argume nt c ann ot c on sti tut e the ba sis of a c la im o f a

n in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. The sec ond, third, and fifth instance s of trial counse l’s alleg ed def icient conduc t involved his failure to objec t to the court’s char g e or make a motion for acquittal on the basis that there was no leg a ll y o r f

a c tu a ll y s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f a

p p e ll an t’ s g u il t. A p p e ll an t s u g g e s ts th a t h e was ha rm e d o n a

pp e a l by tr ia l c ouns e l’ s f

a ilure to r a ise e vid e nti ary c ha lle ng e s at th e tr ia l c ourt le ve l. Appellant is incorr ect in maki n g this assertion beca use the leg al suffic iency and the f

actua l sufficie ncy

of the State’s e vidence may be challeng ed for the first time on appea l. Ra nk in v . S tate , 46 S.W. 3d 89 9, 90 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ) ( le g a l su ff ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e ); se e Gray

so n v . S tate , 826

S.W .3d 357, 358-59 (Te x . App.—Austin 2001, no pet.) (fa ctual sufficie ncy claim). Moreove r, the evidenc e rec ited in this opi nion indicates that the State off ere d signific ant evidenc e of a ppellant’s g uil t. L astly , ap pellant contends that trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel by failing to present f

avora ble cha rac ter e vidence during the punishment p h as e in mitigation of punishment. Appellant fails to identify the mitigatingevidenc e he c laims should have bee n prese nted. As noted a

bove, an all eg ation of ineff ective a ssistance must be firmly founded in the

rec ord. Thompson , 9 S. W. 3 d a t 8 1 4

. T h e r e c o r d

d o e s n o t a f

f ir mati v e ly d e mo n s tr a te th e a lle g ed ineffe ctiveness a sserted by appellant because it is devoid of any ref ere nce to a

ny mitigation evidenc e trial counsel mig ht have of fer ed on beha lf of appellant or trial counsel’s r easoningfor not off ering such evide nce. A

ppellant’s third issue is overr uled. This Court’s Ruling The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

T E R RY M c C A LL

JUSTI CE

J anuar y 22, 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.