NO. 07-05 -043 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D DE CE MB ER21, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JEREMY HUNEY CUTT , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO . B1 6093- 0506; HO NO RA BLE E D SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t J erem y Huney cut t app eal s from hi s c onv ic ti on of the offense of posse ssion of

a co ntrolled su bsta nce w ith inten t to deliver an d the se nte nce conf ining him to t he I ns ti tu ti on al D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m. Back g ro und Trooper Je rrod Bur

tnettst opped a ppel lan t on Intersta te 27 i n H ale C ounty for speed ing
. Appel lan t’ s w ife Ang el Hun ey cut t w as a pas seng er . Appel lan t’ s d emeanor andSee T ex. H ealth & Safety C ode A nn. § 4 81. 112 (d) (Ve rnon 2 001 ). T his is a first 1 degree felon y

pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor life or fo r any term of not m ore tha n 99 y ears or l ess than 5 y ears a nd a fin e n o t to ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.32 (Verno n 20 03). 2 the o dor of marijua na about the v ehi cl e l ed th e trooper to re q uestappel lan t’ s c onsen t t o search the v ehi cl e. A ppel lan t g av e c onsen t. The trooper found mar ij uana, methamphetam in e and v ar iou s i tems of drug parapher nal ia in the v ehi cl e. A smal l bag cont ain in g m e th a mphetami ne w as loc ated in a fli p phone found i n the dr iv er ’s si de door pock et. The larg est amount of methamphetami ne w as loc ated in a bag i n Ang el’ s p urse. Bot h appel lan t and hi s w ife w ere ar re ste d. Appel lan t w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h pos ses si on of a c o n tr o lle d s ubst ance, methampheta mine, w it h i ntentto del iv er , i n an amount o f four g ra ms or

more butl ess than 200 g ra ms. Con trar

y to his ple a, the jur

y found him g uil ty as charg ed in the i ndi ctment
. 1 Puni shment w as ass ess ed ag ain st appel lan t at impr is onment for tw enty -e ig ht y ears a nd a fine of $5,000. This appeal foll ow ed. Iss ues Vi a three poi nts of

error , app ell ant a ss erts the t ri al cour t er re d by

al low ing ev ide nce, ov er hi s o bje cti ons, ( 1) of appel lan t’ s e xtraneous co nducttow ard hi s w if e , a n d ( 2) of all eg ed extraneous co nductof appel lan t and hi s father reg ardin g the “famil y busi ness ” of deal ing methamphet amine, in vio la tion of R ule s 4 04( b) and 403 of the Tex as Rul es of E vid e n c e a n d t h e co u rt ’s o rd e r o n a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e ; a n d (3 ) a s s e rt s h e d id n o tre c e iveH ow ev er , app ell ant d id not o bje ct in si mil ar v ein to other

extr a n e o u s condu ct to 2 w hic h Ang el tes ti fied. Appel lan t v oic ed “ lea din g ,” “ non- re spons iv e,” and “n o ti me frame” obj ect ion s to tes ti mony that appel lan t chok ed Ang el, pul led her hai r out, broke her ank le, loc ked her

i n rooms, broke her

ch eekbone, pu t pi ll ow s o v er her face, and hi t her

w it h “t or ches .” Such obj ect ion s did not put t he tr ial co urt on noti ce that appel lan t w as obj ect ing pursu antto Rule of

Ev iden ce 40 4(b). App ellantthus failed to prese rv e error w ith regard to t hose ins tanc es of extraneous condu ct, and w e do not a ddress thos e i nst ances i n our cons ide ra ti on of appel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r. 3 effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el in that tr ial couns el faile d to ti mely and effect iv ely obj ectto ev ide nce of his al leg ed extraneous co nduct
. Ana ly sis Adm is si on of Ev ide nce Reg ar

din g Appe ll

ant’ s V iolence Agai

nst Wife In ap pel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r, he c omplai ns the a dmis si on of ev iden ce t h at he beat Angel, “hur

t [ her ] s er iou sl y ” and onc e “ put h is ci g arettes out on [h er]” w as er ro r beca use it const itute d evidence of e xtrane ous of

fense s n ot ad missible und er Te x as Rule of Ev ide nce 404( b)
. Hi s rele v ance obj ect ion s t o Ang el’s tes ti mony to thes e ev ents pr e s e rved his ap pellat e con ten tion o f inadm issibility

und er Rule 404 (b). Montg om ery v. 2 State, 810 S.W .2d 372 , 387 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 0) (op. on reh’g)
. Und er R ule 404( b) , ev ide nce of ot h e r cr imes , w ro ng s, or ac ts is i nadmis si ble to p ro ve a p e rs o n ’s c h a ra c t e r fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f sh o win g a c t io n in co n fo rm it y t h e re wit h
. T e x. R. Ev id. 40 4(b); Montgom er y, 810 S. W .2d a t 3 8 7- 88. But suc h ev ide nce maybe admis si ble i f it has re lev ance apar t f ro m it s tendency

to show conformity

to charact er . Id
. Admis si bil ity

of ev ide nce u n d e r Ru le 4 04( b) thus depend s o n i ts re lev ance, thati s, it s ten den cy

to ma ke a fact of

co nseque nce mo re o r less prob able , as w ell a s o n the purpo seThe record i ndi cat es appel lan t and his w ife w ere estrang ed bythe ti me of tr ial , and 3 that the S tate opted not t o purs u e her prosec uti on bec ause her co unsel co nv inc ed th e prosec utor

her moti on to su ppress the dr ug s found i n her purse w oul d be suc ces sful. 4 for w hic h it is offered. Cas ey v. State, 215 S.W .3d 870 , 879 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7) ( citi ng Johns ton v

. St ate, 145 S.W .3d 215 , 220 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4)). One p ro p e r pu rpose under R ule 404( b) for a dmis si on of rele v ant e xtraneous co n d u ct ev ide nce is to re but a defensi v e the or

y . Powell

v. Sta te , 63 S.W .3d 4 35, 4 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) ; Ranso mv. State , 920 S.W .2d 2 88, 3 01 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ( op. o n reh’ g ). The tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on w het her to a dm itev iden ce un der Rule 40 4(b) w ill be u phe ld on ap pea l absen t an ab use of dis creti on. Montg om ery , 810 S.W .2d a t 391
. Thus, w e w il l not i ntercede as lon g as the tr ial co urt' s r uli ng w as at l eastw it hin the z one of reason abl e di sag re ement. Id
. On rev iew

of the record, we rej ectappel lan t’ s c hal len g e under R ule 404( b) to the admis si on of hi s w ife’s tes ti mony of hi s v iol ent act s ag ain st her
. The record s how s t hat a par t of appel lan t’ s t ri al strateg y w as to pl ace bla me for t he presenc e of the methampheta mine on hi s w ife. I n hi s co u n se l’s openi ng st atement, he t old the jur y the 3 evidence would show Angel sold drugs. He also to ld the ju ry e v iden ce w ould show the f lip phone a nd th e purse cont ain ing the dr ug s w ere hers, and t he c ar w as re g is tere d in her name. T he St ate ’s second w itness, af ter its chem ist, wa s T roop er Burtne tt. App ellant ’s cross -e x aminat ion of the t ro oper emphas iz ed Ang el’ s c onnecti ons w it h the dr ug s. After he as ked the t ro oper

to li st the c ircums tanc es that co n n e ct e d t he dr ug s w it h appel lan t, couns el ask ed how

he k new Ang el “j ust did n’thav e the st uff on h er i n her purse in her

ca rOn directex aminat ion , t he St ate i nq uired of the trooper w hether he o bser

v ed th e 4 in t e ra c t io n b e twe e n a p p e ll a n ta n d h is wife a n d wh e t h e r ei t h e r of t h e m a p p e a re d t o “h a ve influ ence or

co ntrol” ov er

the other
. He opi ned, w it hout obj ect ion , that ap pel lan t had cont ro l ov er

hi s w ife. 5 and [app ellant ] didn ’t know abo ut it?” Th e troop er respon ded , in part, tha t app ellant ’s “d emeanor

tow ard her

w as v er y co ntroll ing .” H e l ater

respon d e d to couns el’ s q uest ion 4 w hether i t app eared to hi m thatAnge l was afrai d, s tati ng , “ Notafrai d, bu t v er y under cont ro l. ” Angel w as the S tate ’s n ext w itness. She d enie d prior kn owl edge of the pre sence of methamphetami ne i n the ca r, sa y ing sh e first knew of itw hen her

hus band “ sta rt ed pul li ng so methi ng out of his poc ketand tr y ing to put i t i n hi s c ell phone. ” She tes ti fied th e drugs fo und in her p urse w ere in the ca r’s con sole betw een the f ront sea ts w hen they w ere stop ped , and she hid the bag of drugs in her purse at he r husba nd’s instruct ion. Sh e said she compl ied out of fear of her hus band. Appel lan t’ s c ro ss -e x aminat ion of Ang el chal len g ed her v ersi on of the int eract ion betw een t he c oupl e after they w ere s topped, and spec ific all y chall eng ed her

as ser ti on s he w as afrai d of

h e r husb and. The tes ti mony appel lan t add re ss es in his first poi nt of er ro r occurred on the Sta te’s redirect ex am inatio n of Angel. In respo nse to app ellant ’s relev ance obje ction, t he prose cuto r argued the te stimo ny w as relevant to ap pellan t’s control over his w ife, s how ing w hy

sh e feared hi m and “ w oul d do w hat h e made h er do.” W e ag re e. In a poss ess ion ca se, the Stat e mustprov e tw o el ements : t hat the accus ed ex er ci sed care, c ontrol, and manag ement ov er the cont ra band; and t hat t he ac cus ed k newIn arg uin g thatthe tr ial courtcommitte d harmful error here, appel lan t reli es on Tate 5 v. State, 762 S.W .2d 6 78 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 Dis t.] 1988, pet. ref’d) for the proposi ti on st that the t ri al cour

t’ s admis si on of

extraneous co nductrela ti ng to his treatment of Ang el w as har mf ul er ro r. Tat

e does not aid appel lan t’ s a rg uments
. It inv olved the admis si on of extraneous offenses i n v iol ati on of the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er on a moti on to su ppr e ss. The re v ersal di d notreston p re ser v ati on of er ro r by

a mot ion i n l imi ne. 6 t h e ma t t e r p o s s e s s e d w a s c o n t ra b a n d
. Ma rtin v. St ate, 753 S.W .2d 3 84, 3 87 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)
. One o f t he w ay s the Stat e soug ht to demonst ra te appel lan t’ s c are, cont ro l, and manag ement of the methamphet amine found in An gel ’s purse w as to s how tha t she hid it there at his direction
. T hatA ngel p ut the d rugs i n he r purse at ap pellan t’s direction is an elem ent al fact de mo nstrat ing appe llant’s exercise of control over the drugs. Montg om ery , 8 1 0 S .W .2 d at38 7 . A s n o te d , A n gel te st if ie d sh e ha d no pri o r kn o wled ge of the presenc e of methamphet amine in the car b u t follo w ed her hus band’ s i nst ru cti ons and t ook poss ess ion of the i ll eg al sub st a n ce dur ing the traff icst op. Ev ide nce she w as moti v ated by

fear of he r husba nd s er v es to ex pla in her

w il li ng ness to tak e s uch act ion , and thus se rv es to mak e more probabl e the fact t hat sh e d id s o. See i d. Th rough crossexamina tion, app ellant challen ged her assertion she w as af raid of him . Th e trial court did notabu se its discretion und er Rule 404 (b) by c o n c lu d in g Angel’s testim ony on redirect ex am in a ti o n e x pla ini ng w hy sh e feared her

hus band ha d rele v ance apar t from any ten den cy to prov e he had a prop ensity for v iolence tow ard he r. Se e R ansom , 920 S.W .2d at 30 1 (extrane ous o f

fense s adm issible to rebu t defensive theo ries rais e d b y State ’s w itness d uring cross-examina tion). Appel lan t al so compl ain s o f the St ate’ s v iol ati on of the m o ti o n i n l imi ne as par t of his assertion thatthe trial court erred in pe rmitting evi den ce of his v iolence tow ard An gel. 5Appel lan t’ s n oti ce obj ect ion a t tria l focused on hi s a ss erti on th e St ate fai led to 6 disclose a n alleged “plea dea l” w ith Angel, no t a lack of notice und er Rule 404 (b). 7 Appel lan t’ s mot ion i n l imi ne s oug ht t o li mit the Stat e’s menti on, all usi on, or re ferenc e to an y extraneo us of

fense s comm itted by app ellant w ithou t f irst discussing such m atte rs before the c our t, outs ide the jur

y ’s presenc e. By

hi s a rg ument on appeal , app ell ant a ppears to re ly o n a m o t io n in li m in e t o p re s e rve e rr o r t o t h e im p ro p e r a d m is s io n o f t e s t im o n y. Gen erally , a mo tion in limin e w ill notpreserve err o r t o t h e ad mission of inadm issible ev ide nce. Br

az zell v. Sta te, 481 S.W .2d 130, 13 1 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1972)
. See al so Geuder v. State, 115 S.W .3d 1 1, 14 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ( tr ial jud g e's g ra nt or deni al of a moti on in li m ine is a p relimina ry

ruling only an d norm ally preserves nothin g for app ellate rev iew ). Remedi es av ail abl e for v iol ati on of a moti on i n l imi ne are w it h the tr ial co urt. Braz zell, 481 S.W .2d a t 131
. Appel lan t’ s fai lure to pro p e rly objectto cer tai n ev ide nce in thi s mat ter canno t be c ured by

rely ing on t he tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on t he moti on i n l imi ne. See Braz zell, 481 S. W .2d a t 131 ( for er ro r to be preser v ed on appea l with re g ard to the a dmis si on of i na dm i s s i bl e ev i de nc e, o bj ec ti on t he ret o s ho ul d be ma de a t th e ti me t he e v i de nc e is of fered ). In s uppor

t of hi s first poi nt of er ro r, appel lan t al so br iefly menti ons that the extraneous co nductev ide nce of w hic h he compl ain s w as not i ncl uded i n the Sta te’ s 4 04( b) noti ce, and makes pas si ng referenc e to Rul e of Ev ide nce 403. N e it h er co ntent ion w as ra is ed attr ial ; thus nei ther is preser v ed for our re v iew
. Tex
. R. App. P. 3 3.1; 6 Montg om ery, 8 1 0 S
. W
. 2 d a t3 8 8 ( re le va n c e o bje c t io n b a s e d o n Ru le 4 0 4 (b ) i s n o tsu f f ic ie n tt o p re s e rve er ro r re g ardin g R ule 403; furth er obj ect ion bas ed on Rul e 403 is req uired)
.LaVon ne Hun ey cut t w as a defense w it ness . She tes ti fied s he w as not a w are of 7 any deal ing o f

d ru g s b y

her hus band or

her so n. She al so ack now led g ed s he obs er v ed some v iol ence betw een app ell ant a nd Ang el and t hat s he had seen br uis es on Ang el. A ppe llant again advance s t he argume nt tha t the t rial cou rt e rred in perm itting this 8 ev ide nce in v iol ati on of its order on the motion in limi ne. As w e hav e not ed, a n order on a moti on i n li mine does not preser v e an is sue on appe al ov er admi ss ibi li ty

of ev ide nce. I n add ition, we note th e mo tion in li min e grant ed by the trial court here ma kes no referen ce to th e con ductof

app ellant ’s fa the r. 8 W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first poi nt of er ro r. Evide nce Adm itted

Regardin g App ellant ’

s “Fam ily Business” In ap pellan t’s secon d issue, he con ten ds the trial court erred in perm itting ev iden ce of all eg ed extraneous co nductof appel lan t and hi s father
. Appel lan t s peci fical ly co mplai ns of ev ide nce a d mi tt e d t h ro u g h A n g e l and appel lan t’ s mot her , LaV onne H uney cut t, re g ardin g the “f a mil y

bus ine ss ” of deali ng methamphet amine. W e find that appel lan t made no obje ction to the te stimo ny of LaVo nne Huneycutt, an d tha t he m ade no objection to Angel’s t e s t im o n y o n t h is p o in t
. A c c o rd in gl y, h is c o n t e n t io n s p re s e n t n o t h in g fo r ou r re vie w. T e x. 7 8 R. App. P. 33.1. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Ineff ect iv e As si sta nce of C ounse l In ap pellan t’s last pointof error, he asserts th at his tr ial coun sel’s failure to object time ly a nd e f

fectively to evidence o f

his extrane ous b ad a cts rende red his cou nsel’s ass is tanc e i neffect iv e. The t est imony to w hic h he re fers is thatof Ange l, a ss erti ng that appel lan t c hoked her , pull ed her hair out, brok e her ankl e, l ock ed her i n rooms, broke her cheek bone, put p il lows o v er her face, and hi t her

w it h “ torches ,” as w ell as te st im ony9

re g ardin g t he al leg ed extraneous co nductof appel lan t as a methamphetami ne deal er and e n gage m e n t in th e “fa m ily bu sin e ss ” of de a lin g. Str ickl and v. W ashi ngton, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.C t. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ( 1984) , as appl ied by

the Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls i n Her nandez v. Sta te, 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ), se t s fo rt h t h e t e s tt h a tm u s tb e sa t is f ie d t o p ro ve a n in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel cl aim. U nder the firs t par

t of the Str

ickl and test, an ap pellan t mu st show thatco unsel 's per

formance w as defici ent. T his req uires show ing that c ounse l made er ro rs so se ri ous that couns el w as not funct ion ing as the couns el gua ra nteed the defendant by

the Si xth A mendment. Str ickl and, 4 6 6 U
. S
. a t6 8 7; Yo u n g v . St ate, 991 S.W .2d 8 35, 8 37 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. W hen re v iew ing a c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce, we “m u stin d u lge a st ro n g pre su m p ti o n th a t c o u n se l’s co n d u ctfa lls w it h in t h e w id e ran ge of reas o n a b l e p ro fe s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e ; t h a t i s , t h e d e fe n d a n t mu s t o v e r c o me the presumpt ion t hat, under the ci rc umstan ces , t he c hal len g ed ac ti on ‘ mig ht be co nsi dered s oun d trial strategy .’” Str ickl and , 4 6 6 U
. S
. a t 6 8 9 ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. U n d e r the se co nd par

t of the Str

ickl and te s t, t he a pp el l an t mu s t s ho w t ha t th ere i s a rea s ona ble probabi li ty

that , butfor c ounse l’ s u nprofessi onal errors, t he result of t he p rocee ding w ould hav e been different. Id. T his part of the test ca rries “ a strong presum ption thatcoun sel’s conduct falls w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce” and the appel lan t mus t ov er come t his presumpt ion by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. In ap ply ing the Str

ickl and test, an appell ate cour

t shoul d not try

to sec ond- g uess tr ial coun sel’s tactical de cisions tha t do no t fall be low the th resho ld of

the objective standa rdSi mil ar ly , c our ts hav e req uired an app e llant cl aimi ng co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for 9 faili ng to obj ectto demonst ra te t he tr ial co urt w oul d hav e c ommitt ed er ro r by refusing to sus tai n the obj ect ion had it been made. Se e , e.g., Br own v. Sta te , 6 S.W .3d 5 71, 5 75 (Te x .Ap p.– T y ler 1999 , pet . ref ’d). 10 of reas onabl eness . Id. An i ndi v idu al has a r ig ht t o effect iv e, no t er ro rl ess , represent ati on. Br idg e v . St ate, 726 S.W .2d 5 58, 5 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)
. In de ter mini ng w hether couns el’ s a ss is tanc e i s e ff ect iv e, t he c our t mus t l ook at c ounse l’ s repre sent ati on of the defendant as a w hol e, an d notmere ly a t isolated er ro rs . Ex par te K unkle, 852 S.W .2d 499 , 505 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 3). An allegation of inef fective assistance mustbe f irmly founded i n the record. Thom pson v. State, 9 S. W .3 d 80 8, 81 3 ( Tex .C r i m. App . 199 9). Moreover, the repre sent ation of the de fend antshou ld be view ed f rom d efense coun sel’s perspecti v e at tr ial , and not w it h 20- 20 hi ndsi g ht. Ma dden v . St ate, 911 S.W .2d 2 36, 2 41 (Tex .App. –W aco 1995, pet. re f’d)
. App ellantconte nds th at his coun sel provided inef fective a ssistance a t trial becau se he failed to prope rly

object , and thus pre serv e error, as to th e evide n c e r e la ting to his v iol ence tow ards Ang el a n d hi s i nv olv ement i n deal ing methamphet amine. In our dis posi ti on of appell ant’ s f irst poi nt of er ro r, w e hav e det er mined that the o bje cti ons ra is ed did no t p re s e rve a ppe llant’s com plaintthathis w ife’s testim ony of his acts of

v iolence tow ard her

w ere i nadmiss ib le under R ule 404( b)
. Appel lan t poi nts out his co unsel obviously desired to exclude such ev iden ce be cause he o bje c t e d , b ut failed to do so p ro p e rl y. Co u n s e l d o e s n o tr e n d e r in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e , h o we ve r, b y fa il in g t o p re s e rve an “er ro r” w hic h is not rev ersi ble er ro r. D oyle v . St ate, 875 S.W .2d 2 1, 23 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler 1994, no pet .) , citi

ng Johns on v. State, 691 S.W .2d 619, 626 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. In 9On re dire ct, the Stat e as ked Ang el about appel lan t’ s p arents , C har les and 10 LaVonne Hu ney cut t, and i nq uired i nto A ng el’ s d ru g us e, i ncl udi ng w here s he obt ain ed methampheta mine. An g el re spond ed th at ap p e lla n t’ s father prov ide d i t. W hen as ked w hat t he “ f a m ily

bus ine ss ” w as, Ang el re pli ed, “ I’ m ass uming deal ing .” An g el further tes ti fied th at s he bel iev ed th is bec ause unfamili ar peo p le we re alw ay s c oming ov er and app ellantand his fa the r w ould be gone for hou rs to “reup .” 11 our dispo sition of

app ellant ’s f irst poin t of error, w e also hav e con clude d the trial court did not e rr by ov er ru li ng appel lan t’ s rele v ance obj ect ion s t o Ang e l’s testi mony to some o f appel lan t’ s a cts of v iol ence ag ain st her
. The act s o f v iol ence as to w hic h appel lan t di d not preser v e er ro r w ere of a si mil ar nature, and w ere des cr ibe d by Ang el dur ing the same l ine of qu est ion ing on redi re ct ex aminat ion by the Stat e. Had a p p e lla n t rai sed a proper obj ect ion to that tes ti mony , bee n ov e rrul ed, a nd c ontende d on appeal thatadmi ss ion of the testim ony w as error und er Rule 404 (b), w e see no reaso n w hy our conclusion would h a ve b e e n d if

fe re n t
. Ap p e ll a n th a s n o tsh o wn t h a t t h e “e rr o r” h is co u n s e l fa il e d t o p re s e rve for appe ll ate rev iew

w as re v ersi ble erro r. He has thus fail ed to sh ow hi s c ounse l w as in e f fe c t ive fo r a fa il u re t o ra is e a Ru le 4 0 4 (b ) o bje c t io n t o t h e t e s t im o n y. W it h respect t o the tes ti mony reg ardin g the “family b u sin ess ” of deali ng methampheta mine, w e find that appel lan t has not ov er come t he presum p ti on th at 10 couns el’ s fai lure to obj ectw as not p art of a s ound t ri al strateg y . As note d, ap pel lan t ado pte d a strate gy

at trial of

emp hasizing his w ife’s conn ection s to the sa le of d rugs. His cross -e x aminat ion of Trooper Burtne tt and of

Angel incl uded inq uir ies , for ex ample, about her pos ses si on of l arg e amount s o f cash. H e p re se n te d the tes ti mony of a H uney cut t family fri end w ho s aid he h ad personal kn ow led g e of Ang el’ s s ale of methampheta mine and w ho on cross -e x aminat ion by the Stat e s aid he h ad onc e purchas ed the drug from12

Ang el. C ounse l mayw ell hav e w anted the j ur y to hear Angel descr ibe her k now led g e of methampheta mine sal es. I n any ev ent, g iv en appe ll ant’ s c lea r tr ial st ra teg y , w e w il l not sec ond- g uess co unsel ’s tacti cal dec is ion not to ob ject t o the St a te ’s ques ti ons of her on that subj ect
. L a s t ly, app ellant has not show n a reaso nab le prob ability tha t, but for co u nsel’s unprofessi onal er ro rs , i f any , t he resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. App ellantdoe s not add ress the testim ony of othe r w itnesse s, in particula r, that o f Ramiro Sanc hez . D etec ti v e Sanc hez ’ tes ti mony su ppor ts appel lan t’ s p oss ess ion of the methampheta mine and hi s i ntentto del iv er i t. Appel lan t al so ig nores the testimony of Trooper Bur tnettsu ppor

ti ng appel lan t’ s p oss ess ion of the met hamphetami ne. Thus, ev en if the tr ial co urt had ru led that the extraneous co nductof w hic h appel lan t c omplai ns w as in a d m is s ib le , a p p e ll a n t h a s n o t s h o wn a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b il it y t h a tt h e re s u ltwo u ld h a ve been di ff erent. Appel lan t’ s t hird poi nt of er ro r is ov er ru led
. Havi ng ov erruled e ach o f app ellant ’s three poin ts of e rror, we af

f irm the t rial court’s jud g ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.