## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0777- 08 G E R A L D W A Y N E S M IT H , A p p ell a n t

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE TENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

M CLENNAN CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , J O H N SON , K EASLE R , H OL C OM B and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS , J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on. K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J. , c onc ur r e d. O P I N I O N W e gr ant ed t he St at e’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onar yr evi ew t o det er m i ne w h e th e r , i n or der t o obt ai n a hea r i ng on a mot i o n fo r n ew t r i al w hen t he bas i s of t he mot i on i s i neff ect i ve
a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l , a d e f

e n d a n t mu s t e s t a b l i s h a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t yt h a t t h e o u t c o me
w oul d have be en di ffe r enti n or dert o demonst r at e r eas onabl e gr ounds forgr ant i ng r el i ef. W e now hol d t hat for t he m ovant t o demonst r at e r eas onabl e gr ounds forr el i ef w hen al l egi ngSmith — 2

1 Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , he must es t abl i s h bot h St r i ckland pr ongs , w hi ch i ncl udes

1 sh o w in g a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t b u t f o r c o u n se l’s d e f

icie n c y(if

a n y ) a d if

f e re n t re su lt

w o u ld h a v e o c c u rre d . In lig h t o f th e a p p e llan t’s f

a ilu re to e sta b lish a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty that h e c o u ld d em o n str ate p rejud ice, w e re v erse the co u rt o f ap p ea ls, af firm the t ri al co u rt ’s deni al of t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on fornew t r i al w i t hout a hea r i ng, and r emand for r evi ew of t he second i ssue t he ap pell ant r ai sed w hich t he co urtof ap peals i nit i al l ydecli ned t o ad dress
.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE

I n t he T ri al C ourt T he appe l l antw as i ndi ct ed fors exual a s s a u l t , a s econd- degr ee- fel onyoffe ns e, al l eged t o have been com m i t t ed on N ovember 13, 1997. O n D ece m ber29, 1998, t he appe l l antpl ed gui l t y pur s uant t o a pl ea agr eement , and t he t r i al cour t pl ace d hi m on t en y ea rs’ de fer r eda d ju d ic a tio n c o m m u n ity su p e rv is io n . E i ght y ear s l at er , on N ovember 1, 2006, t he S t at e fi l ed a m ot i on t o adj udi cat e, al l egi ng four v i ol at i ons of t he appe l l ant ’ s comm uni t ys uper vi s i on. T he al l egat i ons i ncl uded: ( 1) f a ilu re to re p o rt a s o rd e re d b e tw e e n O c to b e r 8 , 2 0 0 1 , an d Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 2 ; (2 ) f a ilu re to par t i ci pat e i n cour t - or der ed s ex- offe ndercoun seli n g i n 2002; ( 3) comm i s s i on of t he

s ubs equentoffe ns e of dead ly conductfami l yvi ol ence on O ct ober17, 2006; and ( 4)

com m i ssi on of t he subsequ ent off ense of t err ori st i c t hreat on O ct ob er 17 , 20 06
. T o th e se
a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e a p p e l l a n t p l e d “ n o t t r u e , ” a n d a h e a r i n g wa s h e l d o n F e b r u a r y1 , 2 0 0 7
. AtSmith — 3

the h ea ri n g , the ap p ell an t’ s p rob ati o n su p erv isor test ifi ed that the a p p ell an t fail ed to rep o rt
a n d p a rticip a te in th e se x -o f f e n d e r pr o g ra m a n d th a t, d e sp ite h is cla im s tha t h e w a s u n a b le t o r epor t due t o bei ng hos pi t al i zed aft er s ur ger y , t he appe l l anthad notpr ovi ded herw i t h any

ex cu se fornot r epor t i ng or par t i ci pat i ng i n gr oup t her apy . A ddi t i onal l y , t he pr obat i on
s uper vi s or t es t i fi ed t hat s he s us pect ed t he appel l ant of abus i ng pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on. T he vi ct i m of t he deadl y conduct and t er r or i s t i c t hr eat , J onat han H ol t , and t he deputys her i ff w ho

re sp o n d e d to th e c a ll, b o th tes tifie d th a t th e a p p e llan t p o in ted a g u n a t H o lt, a n d w h e n H o lt

w as a tt em p ti n g to le a v e , th e a p p ell an t sho t al l fo u r of h is car’s ti res. T h e a p p ell an t’ s d a u g h ter tes tifie d th a t w h ile th e a p p e llan t d id p o in t a g u n a t H o lt, n o o n e w a s in th e v e h icle

w hen herfat hers hot out t he t i r es . Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he t r i al cour t found al l egat i ons
o n e , thr e e , an d f

o u r to b e tru e , ad

ju d ica ted th e a p p e llan t g u ilt yf o r th e o rig in a l se x u a l-a ss a u lt

o f f e n s e , a n d s e n te n c e d h im to tw e n ty y e a rs in p ri s o n . Subse quent l y , t he appe l l antfi l ed a m ot i on fornew t r i al , acc om pani ed bya r eques t for

a hear i ng. T he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on al l eged t hat t r i al couns el r ender ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance byfai l i ng t o i nfor m t he appel l antof hi s r i ght t o t es t i fyatt he hea r i ng on t he St at e’ s m ot i on t o adj udi cat e and f

ai l i ng t o s ubm i t m edi cal r ecor ds i nt o evi dence
. T he appe l l ant ’ s s uppor t i ng aff i davi t s t at ed: M y a tto rn e y to ld m e I w a s g o in g to g o b a c k o n p ro b a tio n w h e n I w e n t to c o u rt. H e t ol d m e t o j us t s ay not t r ue and not t o s ay any t hi ng el s e. I w as nevergi ven a cha nce t o s ayany t hi ng on m ybehal f. T hus , t he appe l l antas s er t ed t hatt r i al couns el fai l ed t o advi s e hi m of hi s r i ght t o t es t i fy
. H adSmith — 4

2 Neither the m otion for new trial itself nor the a ccompa nying a ffidavit make s further mention of ho w thea pp e lla nt’ s te sti mony

and theomi tte d me dic a l r e c ords wo uld have c ha ng e d th e outc ome o f th e a d j u d i cat i o np ro ce ed i n g. 3 Sm ith v . S tate , No. 10-07-00045- CR, 2008 Tex. App. L EXI S 2358 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. h e b e e n so a d v ise d , the a p p e llan t m a in tain e d , h e w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d , reb u tti n g sta tem e n ts

m ade byt he vi ct i m , t he deput ys her i ff, and hi s pr obat i on s uper vi s or . T he appel l antar gued t hatal l t hr ee w i t nes s es w er e unt r ut hful and mi s l eadi ng i n t hei r t es t i m onyand cl ai m ed t hat hi s t es t i m ony w oul d have r efut ed t hei r s t at ement s conce r ni ng t he s hoot i ng on O ct ober17t h, h i s s p i n a l s u r g e r y , a n d h i s a b u s e o f p r e s c r i p t i o n d r u g s . Ad di t i on a l l y , t h e a p p e l l a n t c l a i ms t hat t he om i t t ed m edi cal r ecor ds , w hi ch couns el had i n hi s fi l e, w oul d hav e cor r obor at ed t es t i m onyt hat he had under gone spi nal s ur gery and w as t aki ng pr es cr i pt i on m edi cat i on for

se v e re p a in
. T h e a p p e llan t’s m o tio n re q u e ste d a n e w h e a rin g o n th e S tate ’s m o tio n to
a d ju d ica te b e c a u se th e in f

o rm a tio n a b o u t w h ich th e a p p e llan t w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d “ m a yw e ll have r es ul t ed i n a di ffe r entout come. ” T he a ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al w as deni ed 2

w ith o u t a h e a ri n g . O n A ppeal O n a p p e a l, t h e a p p e llan t ar g u e d th a t th e trial c o u rt (1 ) e rre d b yf a ili n g to c o n d u c t a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on for new t r i al ; and (2) vi ol at ed hi s r i ght t o due proc es s byadj udi cat i ng g u ilt , in p a rt, o n a sta le a lleg a tio n . O n A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 8 , in a n u n p u b lish e d o p in io n , the T e n th C our t of A ppeal s hel d that t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bynot hol di ng a hea r i ng on t he appe l l ant ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el
. W it h o ut addr es s i ng t he s econd 3Smith — 5

2, 2008) (not designated f or publication). In its brief on appe al, the S tate argued that, because the court of a

ppeals at that time lacked j uri s diction to consider cla ims relatingto the trial court’ s d et erm i n ation to proce ed with an a djudication of guilt, seeformer T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt
. 42.12, § 5(b), prior to amendme nt by Acts 2007, 80 L eg ., ch. 1308, § 5, p. 4397, ef f. June 15, 2007, th it a lso the re fo rela c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to c on sid e r t

heapp ell ant ’s c la im that th etria l c ourt e rr e d in failingto gr ant a ne w adjudication hearing
. The court of a ppeals disagree d, holding that it was not deprive d o f jurisdic tio n be c a us e the iss ue pr e se nte d on ap pe a l wa s whe the r the tria l court e rr e d in failingto hold a hea ri n g o n the appe llant’s motion for new tria l, which is a post-adjudication proce edingthat does not arisefrom the de termination to proce ed to adjudicat i o n . Other c ourts of appea ls in Tex as have h el d simil arly
. Se eBu e rge r v . S tate , 6 0 S. W. 3 d

3 5 8 , 3 6 1 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .], p e t. r e f’ d) ; Ama ro v . S tate , 970 S.W .2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1998, no pet.). Se eals o Ba hm v . S tate , 219 S.W .3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (motion for new tri al ca

n be take n afte r a de termination to adjudicateguilt, and trial court, whe n rulingon a motion for new tria l, must follow all require d proce dures, including holding an evide ntiary hearing wh en o n e is warr anted) . The State doe s not contest this holdi ngin its petit ion for discre tionary revie w, and weexpress no opinion with respect to that issue her e.

4 Id. at *6. 5 Id. at *3. i s s ue , t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e ma n d e d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o h o l d a h e a r i ng on t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on. 4 I n r eac hi ng t hi s r es ul t , t he cour t of appe al s s t at ed t hat“[a ] l t hough a def endantdoes not have an ‘a bs ol ut e ri ght ’ t o a hear i ng on a mot i on fornew t r i al , a t r i al cour t m us t hol d a hear i ng w hen a de fenda nt r ai s es a mat t er‘ not det er m i nabl e fr om t he r ecor d, ’ ” as l ong as “t he defe ndant
. . . pr ovi de[s ] a s uppor t i ng aff i davi t s how i ng r eas onabl e gr ounds forhol di ng t hat

r el i ef s hou l d b e g r a n t e d
. ” Th e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s mot i o n w as 5

s uffi ci entt o w ar r anta hea r i ng beca us e he c l ai m ed i neff ec ti v e as s i s t ance of couns el for f a ili n g to a d v ise h im o f

h is rig h t to tes tify a n d f a ili n g to in tro d u c e h is m e d ica l re c o rd s in to evi dence , and bec aus e hi s s uppor t i ng aff idav it all eged thatt he exc l uded t es t i m onyandSmith — 6

6 Id. at *3-4. 7 Id. at *4-6. 8Strickland v. W

ashington , su

pra . 9 J oh ns on v . S

tate , 169 S.W .3d 223, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting that “this Court has held that a trial court has no duty to inform a testifying de fenda nt, repre sented by

counsel, of his right not to te sti fy ,” no r doe s a tria l c ourt have a duty to i nf or m a de fe nd ant a

bo ut h is right to t e s t i f

y )
. It is a criminal defe ndant’s constitutional right to testify on his own behalf. Rock

v. Arkansas , 48 3 U .S. 44 , 5 1- 52 (1 98 7) ; Johnson , 1 69 S.W. 3d at 2 32
. S uch a ri ght c an b e kn ow ing ly and vo luntari ly waived only by the defendant, not his counsel. Emery v. Johnson , 139 F.3d 191, 198 ( 5th Cir. 1997). evi dence w oul d have r ebut t ed t he St at e’ s w i t nes s es conce r ni ng t he eve nt s of O ct ober17t h, hi s m edi cal hi s t or y , and hi s pr es cr i pt i on dr ug abus e. R ej ect i ng t he St at e’ s cont ent i on t hat 6
t he appe l l ant ’ s aff

i davi t w as concl us or y and i ns uffi ci ent , t he cour t of appe al s expl ai ned t hat t he appe ll an t is n ot r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e ca se, an d h eld th at “[ t] h e tri al co u rt
s houl d have hel d a hear i ng on [t he appel l ant ] ’ s m ot i on s o t hathe coul d have f ul l ydevel oped th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o r h is in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im .” 7 W e gr ant ed t he St at e’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onar y r evi ew t o exami ne i t s cont ent i on t hat t he appe l l antw as not ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on fornew t r i al b ecaus e he di d not

es t abl i s h i n hi s pl eadi ng t hat t her e w as a re as onabl e proba bi l i t y t hat t he out come w oul d have been di ffe r ents o as t o demonst r at e r eas onabl e gr ounds for gr ant i ng r el i ef. W e hol d t hatt he

m ovantdoes not have t o pl ead a p rim a fa c ie cas e, but he must at l eas t al l ege f act s t hats how

r eas onabl e gr ounds t o bel i eve t hathe c o u ld p rev ail u n d er b o th pr ongs of t he t es t for inef fe cti v e a ssista n c e o f c o u n sel u n d er St r i ckland
. I n t he i ns t ant cas e, beca us e t he 8 9Smith — 7

10 In his se c on d a

pp e llate iss ue , the a

pp e lla nt c la ime d th at th e tria l c ourt vio late d h is right t o du e pr oc e ss b y

a dju dic atin ghis guil t in

pa rt on a sta le a lle g atio n. B e c a

us e the court

of a pp e a ls rema nded the cause to the trial court for a hearing on theappellant’ s motion for new trial, it dec lined to addre ss his second issue. Although the appellant attempted to raise his second issue as a ground for discr etionary

revie w in this Court, we declined to grant revie w on that issue beca use thereis no “dec ision” from the c ourt of appe als for this Court to review
. E.g

. , S tring er v. S tate , 24 1 S. W
. 3d 52, 59 (Tex
. Cri m . A pp. 2007).

11 State v. Gonzalez , 855 S.W .2d 692, 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (plur ality opinion) (citing Tre v ino v . S

tate , 565 S.W .2d 938, 941 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978)). 12 Re y es v . S tate , 849 S
. W
. 2 d 8 1 2 , 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Se eMa rtine z v . S tate , 74 S.W .3d 19, 21 (Tex. Cr i m Ap p. 2002) (“ The purposeof the he aringis to fully develop the issues appel l ant ’ s m ot i on and affi davi t fai l ed t o r ai s e fact s t o es t abl i s h t hathe could pr evai l under t he St r i ckl and

p rejud ice p ron g , the c o u rto f a p p ea ls erred in h o ldin g that the tri al co u rt
a b u se d its d isc re tio n in f a ili n g to h o ld a h e a rin g o n th e a p p e llan t’s m o tio n f o r n e w trial. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l rev erse the co u rt o f ap p ea ls’ s jud g m en t w ith resp ec t to the ap p ell an t’ s fi r s t i s s ue and r emand t h e ca u se to t he cour t of appe al s t o addr es s t he appe l l ant ’ s s econd i s s ue. 10 THE LA W M ot i on f

or N e w Tri al H e ar i ng T he purp o s e o f a h e a r i n g o n a mot i o n f o r n e w t r i a l i s t o : ( 1 ) “ d e c i d [ e ] whe t h e r t he

caus e s hal l be r et r i ed” a nd ( 2) “pr epar e a r ecor d for pr es ent i ng i s s ues on appea l i n t he eve nt t he mot i on i s deni ed. ” W hi l e w e have hel d t hatt he oppor t uni t yt o pr epar e a r ecor d for 11

a p p e llate re v iew m a k e s a h e a rin g o n a m o tio n f o r n e w trial a c ritica l sta g e , w e h a v e a lso h e ld t hat s uch a heari ng i s not an absolut e ri gh t
. “[A ] hear i ng i s not req u ir ed w h en the m att ers 12Smith — 8

raised in the motion.”)
.

13 Rey es , 8 4 9 S
. W
. 2 d

at8 1 6 (c i t i n g Mc

In tirev . S tate , 698 S.W .2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). Se eals o D arringto n v . S tate , 623 S.W .2d 4 14, 416 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (no abuseof discretion to over

rule motion for new trial without a hea ringwhen “ therewer e no issues pre sented in appellant’s motion for ne w trial which r equire d proof to be de veloped outside the r ecord”).

14 Rey es , 849 S.W .2d at 816. 15 Re y es , 8 49 S.W. 2d

at 81 6; W

all ac ev . S tate , 106 S.W .3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). See also Luce ro v. State, 24 6 S. W.3 d 86 , 9 5 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 20 08 ) ( tria l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in dec lining to hold a hea ringon appellant’ s new trial motion because the re cord pr esente d no rea sonable grounds to believe that the alleg ed jury misconduct aff

ecte d the jury ’s verdict). ra is e d in th e m o tio n f

o r n e w tr ia l a re s u b

je c t to b e in g d e t e r m in e d f ro m th e re c o rd .” 13 C onver s el y , a “t r i al j udge abus es hi s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o hol d a hea r i ng on a mot i on for

new t r i al [w hen] t hat[m ot i on] r ai s es m at t er s w hi ch ar e notdet er m i nabl e fr o m t he r ecor d. [ c itatio n s o m itt e d ]. T o h o ld o th e rw ise w o u ld d e n yth e a c c u se d m e a n in g f u l ap p e llate

re v ie w .” 14 “[R]e cogni z[i ng] t hatan unr estri cted r equi r ement of a he ar i ng on m at t er s not det er m i nabl e fr om t he r ecor d coul d l ead t o ‘ fi s hi ng expedi t i ons , ’ ” w e have al s o hel d t hat

even a defe ndant w ho has r ai s ed s uch m at t er s i s not ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on for

new tr ial u n l es s he “e s t abl i s hes t he exi s t ence of ‘ r eas onabl e gr ounds ’ s how i ng t hatt he defe ndant‘ coul d be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ’ ” T hus w e re q u ir e, as a pr er equi s i t e t o a hea r i ng 15

w hen t he gr ounds i n t he mot i on ar e bas ed on mat t er s not al r eadyi n t he r ecor d, that t he

m o tio n b e su p p o rt e d b ya n a f f id a v it, e ith e r o f

th e d e f e n d a n t o r so m e o n e e lse , sp e c if ica llySmith — 9

16 Georg e E. D i x & Robe rt O. Da wson, 43A T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M IN A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 4 1. 23 (2 d e d. 20 01 ), at 18 1. Th e a ff ida vit re qu ir e me nt fo r c la ims gro un de d o n f a c ts outside the appellaterec ord is a produc t of ca se law a nd is not a cre atureof statute or r ule. Bahm v . S tate , 219 S.W .3d 391, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 17 Rey es , 849 S.W .2d at 816 (qu o t i n g McI nti re , 698 S.W .2d at 658, which state s that the defe ndant’s motion and supporting aff idavits “ must mer ely ref

lect that rea sonable grounds existfor holding that suc h relief

could begra

nte d” (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); see also W allace , 106 S.W .3d at 108 (qu o t i n g Ma rtine

z v . S tate , 74 S.W .3d 19, 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). 18 Dix & D awson

, s up ra , § 41.24, at 182. 19 E.g. , King v . S

tate , 2 9 S. W.3 d 5 56 , 5 68 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 00 ) (tria l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in failing to hold a he aringon appellant’ s motion for new tria l beca use the a ppellant’s ba rea sse rt ion s did not e sta

bli sh fa c ts wh ic h wou ld entit le him to a ne w tri a l) ; J

or da n v . S tate , 883 S.W. 2d 66 4, 66 5 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 94 ) (a ff ida vit that is c on c lus or

y in n atur e is “ no t su ff

ic ie nt t o put the trial judg e on notice that rea sonable grounds exist [] to believe counsel’s repr esentation may have be en inef

fec tive”). 20 W allace , 106 S.W .3d at 106. See also Gonzalez , 855 S.W .2d at 696 (“Both the grantingand thede nyingof

a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l r e st w ith in t

he dis c re tio n of the tria l c ourt , a nd a pp e llate c ourt s ordinarily will not reversethat decision unless the trial c ourt has abuse d its discretion.”). s et t i ng out t he fa ctual bas i s fort he cl ai m . T he af fi davi t need notes t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie 16

c a se , o r e v e n “ ‘re f

lec t ev e ryc o m p o n e n t leg a lly r e q u ire d to e sta b lish ’ re lief.” “ [ I]t is 17

s u f f ic ie n t if a f a ir re a d in g o f

it g iv e s r i s e t o re a s o n a b le g ro u n d s in s u p p o rt o f th e c la im .” 18 B u t a ffi davi t s t hatar e conc l us or yi n natur e and uns uppor t ed byfac t s do not pr ovi de t he

r equi s i t e not i ce of

t he bas i s fort he r el i ef c l ai m ed; t hus , no hear i ng i s r equi r ed. 19 W h e n e x a mi n i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a h e a r i n g o n a mo t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l , we
rev iew fo r an ab u se o f d is c re tio n . In so d o ing , “w e re v erse ‘on lyw h en the tri al j u d g e’s 20 deci s i on w as s o cl earl y w ron g as t o l i e out s i de t hatzone w i t hi n w hi ch r eas onabl e per s onsSmith — 10

21 Gonzalez , 8 55 S.W. 2d

at 69 5 n .4 , 6 96 (a dd ing that it is n ot t here vie wi ngc ourt ’s pla c e to s ub s t i tu t e i t s judgme nt for that of thetrial court, but to deter mine whether

its decision was unrea sonable or arbitra

ry ). Se eals o Ch arle

s v . S tate , 146 S.W .3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (c lari fy ing that “[a ] tria l court a

bu se s its disc re tio n only

wh e n n o r e a so na

blevie w o f t

here c ord c ou ld support the cour

t’s ruling ”). 22 Gonzalez , 8 5 5 S
. W
. 2 d at6 9 6 (c i t i n g Gr izz e ll v . S tate , 298 S.W .2d 816, 821 (Tex. Cr. App. 19 56 ); Br y an v . S tate , 406 S.W. 2d 21 0, 21 6 ( Te x. Cr . App . 1 96 6) ; Hi ll v . S tate , 480 S.W .2d 670, 67 3 ( Te x. Cr . App . 1 97 2) ; Ette r v . S tate , 679 S.W .2d 511, 515 (Tex. Cr. App. 1984)). 23 Rey es , 8 49 S.W. 2d

at 81 6; W

allace , 106 S.W .3d at 108. A hea ringon the motion for new tria l is mand ator

y on ly wh e n th e tria l ju dg e de te rm ine s th at a de fe nd ant h a s a sse rt e d r e a so na ble grounds for r elief a

nd that the facts supporting those grounds are not deter minable from the re cord. A trial judg e is not require d to hold a hearingon the motion if he deter mines that the defe ndant has failed to show one or both of these require ments. But, it is worth noting that in c ases in which one require ment is lacking , the trial judg e may still , in his discretion, conduct a hearing be foregranting or deny ing themotion. It would never , howeve r, amount to an a buse of discr etion not

to. m ig h t d isa g re e .’” A n d “ in th e a b se n c e o f [ su c h ] a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n th is C o u rt w o u ld 21
not be j us t i fi ed i n r ever s i ng the j udgm ent
. ” O ur r evi ew , how ever , i s l i m i t ed t o t he t r i al 22 ju d g e ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s ra ise d g ro u n d s th a t ar e b o th

u n d e ter m in a b le f

ro m th e re c o rd a n d re a so n a b le, m e a n in g th e y c o u ld e n tit le th e d e f e n d a n t to

r e l i e f
. T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s d i s c r e t i o n e x t e n d s o n l y t o d e c i d i n g wh e t h e r t h e s e t wo
r equi r ement s ar e s at i s fi ed. I f t he t r i al j udge fi nds t hat t he defe ndant has m ett he cr i t er i a, he has no di s cr et i on t o w i t hhol d a hea r i ng. I n fac t , und er su ch ci r cumst ance s t he t r i al j udge abus es hi s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o hol d a hea r i ng. 23 I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel I ni t i al l y w e not e t hat “i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el m aybe r ai s ed i n a mot i on forSmith — 11

24 Rey es , 849 S.W .2d at 815. Se eHi ll , 480 S.W .2d at 202-03 (noting that a person place d on defe rre d adjudication and l at er facingan adjudication procee ding ha s the right to be assisted by counsel, whic h i n cl u des the right to reasona bly eff ective a ssistance). Se e, e .g., Mo orev . S tate , 4 S.W .3d 269, 277 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet. h.) (a ddressingmerits of a moti on fo r ne w tri a l bas e d on ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l) ; State v. Kelley , 2 0 S. W. 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 00 , n o p e t. h .) (a ff

ir min gthegra

nti ngof a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l, in t

heint e re st of justice, base d on ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim).

25 Strickland, 466 U. S. at 6 87 ; Mi tc he ll v . S tate , 68 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Ex parte M

cFarland, 163 S.W .3d 743, 753-54 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). 26 Mi tc he ll , 6 8 S. W.3 d at 64 2; Mc Fa rland v . S

tate , 928 S.W .2d 482, 500 (Tex. Cr. App. 1996). See Ex parte McF

arland, 163 S.W .3d at 753 (explaining that counsel’s c onduct was de ficient if he failed to act as “ ‘a r easona bly competent attorney ’ would haveunder thecirc umstances” ). Tria l counsel’s c onduct d

uringhis repre sentation, eva luated as a whole, is presume d to fall within the wide rang e of re asonableprofe ssional assistance. Tho mpso n v . S tate , 9 S.W .3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Thus, the burde n is on the appellant to prove , by a prepondera nce of evidenc e, that his trial counsel’s pe rfor

mancewas inef

fec tive. Id
. 27 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. n ew tr ial
. ” U n d er St r i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , a d ef

en d an t seek ing to ch all en g e c o u n sel’s 24

r epr es ent at i on m us t es t abl i s h t hathis c ouns el ’ s per for m ance ( 1) w as defi ci ent , and ( 2) pr ej udi ced hi s defe ns e. T o s how defi ci ency “t he appel l ant m us t pr ove by a pr eponder ance 25

o f the evi dence t hathi s couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on obj ect i vel yfel l bel ow t he s t andar d of pro f e ss io n a l no rm s. ” A nd t o sho w prej ud i ce, t he ap pell ant “m ust show t here i s a 26

r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , but forhi s couns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal er r or s , t he r es ul t of t he p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t.” “ R e a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty ” is a “ p ro b a b ili ty

27 suffi c i e nt t o un de r mi ne c on fi de nc e i n t he ou t c ome, ” mea ni ng “ c ou ns e l ’ s e r r or s w e r e soSmith — 12

28 Id. at687, 694. Se eals o M itc he ll , 68 S.W .3d at 644 (a ppellant fa iled to show he wa s prejudiced by

counsel’s pe rfor

mancebeca

use he did “ not show a re asonableprobability that the result of the procee ding w ould have be en diffe rent but for counsel’s pe rfor

mance ”). 29 S ee, e.g., Jordan , 883 S.W .2d at 664-65 (f inding that Jordan’s motion did not show de fi c ie nc y

or pr e judic e , an d the re fo re faile d to gi ve no tic e that re a so na ble gro un ds e xiste d to e nti tle hi m to r e lie f) ; King , 2 9 S. W. 3 d at 5 6 6 ( f in d in g th at a

p p e ll ant f a il e d to d e mo n s tr ate e ithe r of the Strickland

pr on g s) ; Buerger , 6 0 S. W.3 d at 36 2- 63 (f indingthat th e tr ial cou rt ha d n ot a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in

no t ho ldi ng a he ari ngon

a pp e lla nt’ s mo tio n f

or ne w tri a l be c a

us e a pp e lla nt “ faile d to explain or demonstrate that the significanc e of [his attorney ’s] actions, if true, we re de ficient or how the y ha rm e d h im” ); Coo k

s v . S tate , 240 S.W .3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 0 7 ) (d ee m ing a n aff idavit conclusory beca

use i t failed to set out what the omitted evidenc e “would have r evea led that rea sonably

could havechang ed the result of the case ,” thus implying that an aff idavit in support of an inef fec tive assistance of counse l claim must spell out how the outcome w ould be diffe rent but for the ineff ectivene ss of counsel)
. seriou s as to d ep ri v e the d ef en d an t of

a f air t ri al, a tri al w h o se re su ltis r eli ab le. ” B ef o re 28 he w i l l be ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on fornew t r i al al l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c o u n se l, a d e f

e n d a n t m u st alle g e su f

f icie n t f a c ts f ro m w h ich a trial c o u rt c o u ld re a so n a b ly concl ude b o th t hatcouns el fai l ed t o act as a r eas onabl ycompet entat t or neyand t hat , but for

couns el ’ s fai l ur e, t her e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he o u tcom e o f hi s t r i al w oul d have b e e n d if f e re n t. 29 A N A L Y S IS I n hi s m ot i on, t he appel l ant al l eged t hat hi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve bec aus e he f a iled b o th to in f

o rm th e a p p e llan t o f

h is rig h t to tes tify a t h is a d ju d ica tio n h e a rin g a n d to intr o d u ce the m ed ical reco rds in to ev id e n c e . B e ca u se “ [t]he rea so n ab lene ss o f c o u n sel’s

c h o ice s o f

ten in v o lv e s f

a c ts th a t d o n o t ap p e a r in th e a p p e llate re c o rd ,” th e r e c o rd w ill gener al l y“notbe s uffi ci entt o s how t hat couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as s o defi ci entas t o m eetSmith — 13

30 Mi tc he ll , 68 S.W. 3d at 64 2; J ack so n v . S tate , 973 S.W .2d 954, 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 31 The State doe s not contest that the appe llant’s claims arenot determinab l e fr o m th e trial rec ord. 32 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. t he fi r s t par t of t he St r i ckland s t andar d. ” T h e sam e is t r ue i n t he i ns t antcas e; w het her

30

couns el ’ s fai l ur es i n fac t s how a def i ci encyt hat pr ej udi ced the appe l l ant ’ s defe ns e i s not det er m i nabl e fr om t he r ecor d. B eca us e t he appel l ant ’ s cl ai m i s not det er m i nabl e fr om t he 31

re c o rd , w e m u st de c id e w h e th e r his m o tio n a n d a f f id a v it sh o w re a so n a b le g ro u n d s th a t co u ld ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. T o do s o, t he appel l ant m us t al l ege fac t s t hat w oul d r eas onabl ys how that h is co u n sel’s rep rese n tat ion fe ll b elow the s tand ard o f p rof essio n al no rm s an d that there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but for hi s couns el ’ s conduct , t he r es ul t of t h e p roc ee di ng
w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t. 32 C ounsel ’ s A l l eged D ef i ci ency In h is m o t i on fornew t r i al , t he appe l l antcompl ai ned t hatdefe ns e couns el w as defi ci enti n t w o r es pect s : ( 1) i n di rec ti n g the appel l ant“t o j us t s aynot t r ue and nott o s ay any t hi ng el s e”a nd “neve r gi v[i ng t he appel l ant ] a chance t o s ayany t hi ng on [hi s ] behal f, ” and ( 2) i n negl ect i ng t o offe r i nt o evi dence t he appel l ant ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds , w hi ch i ndi cat ed t hat h e h a d u n d e r g o n e s p i n a l s u r g e r ya n d h a d b e e n p r e s c r i b e d m e d i c a t i o n f o r s e v e r e p a i n . We have s ai d t hat “def

ens e couns el s houl der s t he pr i m ar y r es pons i bi l i t y t o i nfor m t he def endantSmith — 14

33 J oh ns on v . S

tate , 169 S.W .3d 223, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting that “this Court has held that a tria l court has no duty to inform a testifying defe ndant, represe nted by counsel, of his right not to t e sti fy ,”no r d oe s a tria l court have a duty to i nf or m a de fe nd ant a

bo ut h is right to t e s t i f

y )
. It is a criminal defendant’ s constitutional right to testify on his own behalf. Rock

v. Arkansas , 4 83 U. S. 44 , 5 1- 52 (1 98 7) ; Johnson , 1 69 S.W. 3d at 23 2. Suc h a

ri ght c an b e kn owi ngly and vo luntari ly waived only by

the def endant, not his counsel. Emery v. Johnson , 139 F.3d 191, 198 (5th Cir. 1997). 34 Strickland, 4 6 6 U. S
. at6 8 7 , 6 8 9 (c i t i n g Miche l v. Louisiana , 3 50 U. S. 9 1, 10 1 ( 19 55 )) ; Ex parte McF

arland, 163 S.W .3d at 753. 35 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (cour ts ne ed not “a ddress both compone nts of the inquiry if the def endant make s an insufficie nt showing on one ”). o f h is righ t to tes tify .” T h u s, a n ysh o rtf a ll b yd e f e n se c o u n se l in th is re g a rd m a yc o n stitu te 33 defi ci entper for m ance undert he fi r s t pr ong of Str i ckland
. A ddi t i onal l y , w e have r ecogni zed th a t d e f icie n c yc a n b e th e re su lt o f c o m m iss io n o r o m iss io n o f a n a c t, i n c lu d in g f

a ili n g to pr es entr el evantevi dence , t hatno ot herr eas onabl e at t or neyw oul d r egar d as s ound t r i al

s t r at egy . I f i t can be s ai d t hatno r eas onabl e at t or neyw oul d have f ai l ed t o i nfor m t he 34 appel l antof hi s r i ght t o t es t i fy , ur ged hi m t o do s o, and i nt r oduced the appe l l ant ’ s m edi cal

r ecor ds , t hen t he per for m ance of t he appe l l ant ’ s couns el m ayw el l have fa l l en bel ow pr ofes s i o n a l n o r ms . Howev e r , e v e n a s s u mi n g s u c h d e f i c i e n c i e s e x i s t , we f

i n d t h a t t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on and s uppor t i ng a ffi davi t do not pr ovi de r eas onabl e gr ounds t o bel i eve t hat he ca n s at i s fy t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of St r i ckland ; t her efor e, w e nee d not det er m i ne w het her t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on and af fi davi t s at i s fyt he def

i ci encypr ong of St r i ckland
. 35 P rej udi ce I n addr es s i ng t he pr ej udi ce pr ong, t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on m er el yal l eged that“t heSmith — 15

36 J on es v. S tate , 571 S.W .2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Se eals o Gob e ll v . S tate , 528 S.W .2d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (trial cour t’s revoc ation of Gobe ll’s probation was pr oper beca use, eve n if hi s contentions wer e cor rec t, his revocation was based on two of fense s and he c ha lle ng e d o nly

on e ); Ro ss v . S

tate , 523 S.W .2d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (State’s alleg ation of failureto report to probation officer was suff icient to revokeRoss’s probation, despite any showing of def iciency in the other two violations alleg ed in the motion to revoke)
. i nfor m at i on about w hi ch he w oul d have t es t i fi ed m ay w el l have r es ul t ed i n a diff ere nt out come. ” H e made no at t empt t o expl ai n how t hi s m i ght be s o. N or does t he r ecor d s eem t o bearout hi s naked a s s er t i on. In a c a se in w h ich th e S ta te a ll e g e s b u t a s in g le g ro u n d in su p p o rt o f its m o tio n to pr ocee d t o adj udi cat i on, a bar e as s er t i on t hat couns el ’ s al l eged de fi ci encyatt he adj udi cat i on hear i ng w as pr ej udi ci al m i ght be enough t o ent i t l e t he defenda nt t o a hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on fo r ne w tr ial , if th e p re

jud ice se em s ev iden t on the re co rd. B u t i n this case , the tri al co u rt found t hatt he appe l l antcomm i t t ed t hr ee of t he four vi ol at i ons al l eged i n t he St at e’ s m ot i on to ad jud icate. W e h av e lon g h eld th at “ o n e su ff ici en t g rou n d fo r re v o ca ti o n w o u ld su p p o rt t he t r i al cour t ’ s or der r evoki ng” comm uni t ys uper vi s i on. T hus , t o be ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng 36 on hi s m ot i on fornew t r i al , t he appe l l antm us t pr es entfac t s t o s how t hatr eas onabl e gr ounds exi s t t o over t ur n each of t he t r i al cour t ’ s t hr ee fi ndi ngs of t rue t hat l ed t o hi s adj udi cat i on: ( 1) fai l ur e t o r epor t , ( 3) comm i t t i ng t he off ens e of de adl yconductfami l yvi ol ence , and ( 4)

comm i t t i ng t he off

ens e of terrori s t i c t hr eat
. T he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on and af fi davi t cont end th a t th e a p p e llan t’s te stim o n ya n d th e o m itt e d m e d ica l re c o rd s w o u ld h a v e re b u tted h is pr obat i on s uper vi s or ’ s s t at ement s conce r ni ng hi s fai l ur e t o r epor t , w hi ch w as t he bas i s of t heSmith — 16

37 T EX . P EN . C ODE § 22.05. St at e’ s fi r s t gr ound forr evoca t i on. T hus , i f t aken as t r ue, t he appe l l ant ’ s pr offe r ed evi dence

m i ght vi t i at e t he appe l l ant ’ s r evoca t i on bas ed on t he fi r s t al l egat i on of fa i l ur e t o r epor t
. B ut g ro u n d s th re e a n d f

o u r o f th e S ta te ’ s m o ti o n to re v o k e , if f o u n d tru e , rem a in su f

f icie n t to
s uppor t t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o pr ocee d t o an adj udi cat i on of t he appe l l ant ’ s gui l t
. E ven
as s um i ng t hatt he appe l l antcoul d s ucce s s ful l ychal l enge the fa i l ur e t o r epor t vi ol at i on, t he t r i al cour t w as j us t i fi ed i n r evoki ng hi s defe r r ed- adj udi cat i on comm uni t ys uper vi s i on. G r ounds t hr ee and fourof t he St at e’ s m ot i on t o adj udi cat e al l eged thatt he appe l l ant
comm i t t ed t he off

ens es of dea dl yconductand t er r or i s t i c t hr eat , r es pect i vel y . B ot h offe ns es
w ere alle g e d g e n e ra lly; th e re f o re , a ll th e o ri e s p ro v id e d u n d e r t h e c o rr e s p o n d in g s ta tu te s w ere avai l abl e t o t he t r i al cour t
. T her efor e, t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of t r ue on al l egat i ons t hr ee a nd f o u r c a n b e ju s tif

ie d o n a n yth e o r ye n u m e ra te d in th e re s p e c tiv e p e n a l c o d e p ro v is io n s . D eadlycon du ct , S ect i on 22
. 05 of the T exas P enal C od e, provides: ( a) A per s on comm i t s an off ens e i f he r eckl es s l yengage s in co n d uctt hat p l a c e s a n o t h e r i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y. (b ) A p e rso n c o m m its a n o f f e n se if h e k n o w in g lyd isc h a rg e s a f ire a rm a t o r in t he di r ect i on of: (1) o n e o r m o re ind ividu als; o r (2 ) a h a b itatio n , b u ild in g , o r v e h icl e a n d is re c k les s a s to w het hert he habi t at i on, bui l di ng or vehi cl e i s occupi ed. 37 E ven as s um i ng, as t he appe l l antcont ends , t hatno o n e w as i ns i de t he vehi cl e w hen t heSmith — 17

38 T EX . P EN . C ODE § 22.07. appel l ants hot ou t the t i r es , t he appe l l antadmi t s t hathe fi r ed t he gun att he vehi cl e and he di d s o w hi l e H ol t , t he appe l l ant ’ s daught er s , and a f r i end w er e al l w i t hi n t he i m m edi at e ar ea
s ur r oundi ng t he vehi cl e. T he she ri ff ’s deput yt es t i fi ed t hathe arr es t ed t he appe l l antfor deadl yconductbeca us e H ol t and a f r i end “w er e i n a vehi cl e w hi ch w as s hot atb y [t he appel l ant ] and a pr oj ect i l e coul d r i coche t and hi t t hem, ” pl aci ng t hem i n pot ent i al dangerof

s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y . R emovi ng H ol t and t he fr i end fr om t he i ns i de of t he vehi cl e does not al t er t he pot ent i al danger i n w hi ch t he appel l ant ’ s act i ons pl ace d t hem. I n fac t , i f t he par t i es
w ere stan d ing o u tsi d e the v eh icl e, t h en there is argu ab lyan ev en g rea ter po tential fo r a pr oj ect i l e t o r i coche t and hi t t hem. T aki ng t he par t i es out of t he vehi cl e dur i ng t he i nci dent onl ya l t e r s t h e s e c t i o n u n d e r whi c h t h e a p p e l l a n t i s g u i l t yo f d e a d l yc o n d u c t , ma k i n g t he

a p p e lla n t c u lp a b le u n d e r S e c tio n 2 2 .0 5 (a ), i n s te a d o f S e c tio n 2 2 .0 5 (b )( 2 ). A ltern a tiv e ly , terro ristic th re a t, S e c tio n 2 2 .0 7 o f th e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e , p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: (a) A person co m m i ts an off ense i f he threat ens t o co m m i t any off ense i nvol vi ng vi ol ence t o anyper s on or pr oper t yw i t h i nt entt o: * * * ( 2 ) p l a c e a n y p e r s o n i n f e a r o f i m m i n e n t s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y, ( 3) pr eventor i nt er r upt t he occ upat i on or use of .
. . [an] a u to m o b ile [ .] 38 A t hr eat can be bot h verbal and nonverbal
. I n hi s aff i davi t , t he appe l l antm ai nt ai ns t hatheSmith — 18

39 Appellant’s B rief, at 13-14. The a ppellant argues that the trier of fa ct may

consider the di d not poi nt a gun atH ol t
. A s s um i ng t hi s cont ent i on t o be t r ue, t he appel l ant i s ar guabl ynot gu i l t yof ter ror i st i c t hreat un der sect i on 22
. 05 (a) (2)
. T he ap pell ant’ s daug hter , nev ert heles s, t es t i fi ed dur i ng t he r evoca t i on hear i ng t hat t he appel l ant di d pul l a gun and thathe di d s hoot out t he t i r es “t o m ake s ur e t hat[H ol t , hi s daught er , and t he fr i end] coul d not leav e.” T he appel l anthi m s el f admi t t ed t o t he d ep u ty sh eriff t hathe s hot t he t i r es . H ol t al s o t es t i fi ed

s ever al t i m es t hatt he appe l l antt ol d hi m , “Y ou’ r e not goi ng anyw her e. ” C ons equent l y , even
as s um i ng t he ap p ell ant ’ s cont ent i ons t o be t r ue, he coul d s t i l l have be en found t o have

comm i t t ed a t er r or i s t i c t hr eat , under Sect i on 22. 05( a) ( 3) , byt hr eat eni ng vi ol ence t o pr event
or i nt er r upt t he use of an aut om obi l e. T her efor e, by fai l i ng t o s ucce s s ful l y chal l enge a l l t hr ee
comm uni t ys uper vi s i on vi ol at i ons found t r ue byt he t r i al j udge, t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on and

a f f id a v it d o n o t su p p o rt h is co n c lu so ry sta tem e n t p ro c laim in g th a t h is te stim o n y“ m a yw e ll have r es ul t ed in a d iffe rentout come. ” The cour t of appe al s er r ed i n hol di ng t hatt he t r i al

c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in f a ili n g to h o ld a h e a rin g o n th e a p p e llan t’s m o tio n f o r n e w trial. P uni s hm ent P rej udi ce T he appe l l antar gues t hat , even i f t he pr opos ed t es t i m onyand omi t t ed medi cal r ecor ds fal l s hor t of di r ect l yaddr es s i ng al l t he vi ol at i ons al l eged i n t he St at e’ s m ot i on t o adj udi cat e, t he appel l ants houl d s t i l l be ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on “[b] eca us e a r evoca t i on hear i ng i s eff

ect i vel ya ‘s econd s ent enci ng hear i ng, ’ [and] t he t r i al j udge i s al l ow ed t o hear and cons i deranyr el evantevi dence t hatm i ght j us t i fya r educe d s ent ence . ” E s s ent i al l y , t he 39Smith — 19

e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at th e a dju dic atio n h e ari ngbo th i n d e c idi ngwh e the r t o a dju dic ate guilt and in deter mining the a

ppropriatepunishment to be assessed within the applicablerang e. Eve n if his trial c ouns e l’ s in e ff

e c tiv e ne ss did n ot m ake a dif fe re nc e in t

hea dju dic atio n d e cis io n, heargue s, it s til l could haveadver sely

aff ecte d him with respect to the punishment assessment, and he should have been a llowed to develop the e vidence of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel at a hea ringon his moti on for ne w trial if only

for this purpose. 40 Ex parte Chave

z , 213 S.W .3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that there a re “ a fe w sp e c if ic ins tanc e s whe rethera

ng e of punis hme nt d e pe nd s u

po n th e de te rm inatio n o f disc re te fa c ts” and that tho se ins tanc e s, be ing int ri ns ic a lly fa c tbo un d, do no t inv olv e a no rm ativ e pr oc e ss) ; Su nb ur y v . S tate , 8 8 S. W.3 d 2 29 , 2 33 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 02 ); Me nd iol a v . S tate , 2 1 S. W. 3 d

2 8 2 , 2 8 5 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Roge rs v . S tate , 9 91 S.W. 2d

26 3, 26 5 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 19 99 ); Miller-El v. Sta te , 7 82 S.W. 2d

89 2, 89 5- 96 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 90 ); Mu rp hy v . S tate , 7 7 7 S. W. 2 d 4 4 , 6 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1988) (plura lity opinion on St ate’ s motion for rehe aring ). ap p ell an t argu es th at t h e o m it ted testi m o n yan d ev iden ce w ere m ate ri al t o the tri al j u d g e’s det er m i nat i on as t o t he l engt h of hi s s ent ence fort he or i gi nal offe ns e. W hi l e w e ac ceptt he appel l ant ’ s pr emi s e t hatevi dence pr es ent ed att he adj udi ca t i o n h e a r i ng m i ght al s o be r el evant to th e trial c o u rt’s p u n ish m e n t d e c isio n , w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t th is f a c t alo n e sh o u ld e n tit le hi m t o a hear i ng on hi s m ot i on fornew t r i al
. “W e have fr equent l yobs er ved t hatt he t as k of

se tti n g a p a rticu la r len g th o f c o n f in e m e n t w ith in th e p re sc rib e d ra n g e o f p u n ish m e n t is

esse n ti al l ya ‘ nor m at i ve’ j udgm ent
. * * * I ndeed, w e have des cr i bed t he s ent encer’s d isc re tio n to im p o se a n yp u n ish m e n t w ith in th e p re sc rib e d ra n g e to b e e ss e n tia lly

‘ unfet t er ed. ’ ” Si m i l ar l y , t he deci s i on of w hatpuni s hm entt o as s es s aft eradj udi cat i ng t he

40 defe ndantgui l t yi s a pur el y nor m at i ve pr oces s , not i nt r i ns i cal l y fac t bound, and i s l eftt o t he

u n f e t t e r e d d i s c r e t i o n o f

t h e t r i a l j u d g e . On l yt h e t r i a l j u d g e i n t h i s c a s e c o u l d h a v e k n o wn
w hatfac t or s he t ook i nt o cons i der at i on i n as s es s i ng t he or i gi nal p u ni s hm ent , and onl yhe

w o u ld k n o w h o w th e d e f e n d a n t’s tes tim o n y , if a llo w e d , m ig h t h a v e a f f e c ted th a t as se ss m e n t.Smith — 20

Wh e n t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e c l i n e d t o h o l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s mo t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l , we p re su m e th a t h e k n e w f

ro m th e a f

f id a v its w h a t th e a p p e llan t’s tes tim o n y a t a h e a rin g w o u ld b e , an d th a t, e v e n a ss u m in g a n ysu c h tes tim o n yto b e a c c u ra te a n d re liab le, k n e w th a t it

w o u ld n o t hav e inf

luen ce d h is ult im ate n o rm ati v e jud g m en t. In th a t e v e n t, the tri al co u rt coul d have c oncl uded, w i t hout t he nec es s i t yof a he ar i ng, t hatt he appe l l ants uffe red no pr ej udi ce f

r om anydefi ci encyon hi s t r i al couns el ’ s par t w i t h r es pect to the asse ssment of p u n is h m e n t f

o r t h e o ri g in a l o f

f e n s e . CO NC L US I ON T he ap p ell an t’ s m ot i on fornew t r i al and s uppor t i ng aff i davi t r ai s ed a mat t ernot d eterm inab le fro m the reco rd, n am ely , that tr ial co u n sel w as in ef fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to inf

o rm h im o f h is rig h t to tes tify o n h is o w n b e h a lf a n d to e n ter c e rta in m e d ica l re c o r d s in to evi dence
. H ow ever , despit e havi ng r ai s ed a mat t ernot det er m i nabl e fr om t he r ecor d, t he ap p ell an t fail ed to es tablish rea so n ab le gro u n d s to b eli ev e tha t he c o u ld, un d er Stri ck l and , pr evai l on hi s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , ent i t l i ng hi m t o a new adj udi cat i on p roc ee d ing
. S p ec ifi ca ll y , b yfa il ing to ex p lai n h o w co u n sel’s all eg ed ly u n p rof essio n al errors

w oul d have change d t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng of t r ue on al l t hr ee vi ol at i ons i n the S tat e’s

m o tio n to a d

ju d ica te, t h e a p p e llan t f a iled to sh o w th a t b u t f

o r c o u n se l’s d e f

icie n c yth e re su lt of t he hea r i ng t o adj udi cat e gui l t w oul d have been di ffe r ent
. C ons equent l y , appel l antdi d not pr es entfac t s adequa t e t o demonst r at e r eas onabl e gr ound s ex is t t o bel i eve he coul d pr ove i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el at an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t heSmith — 21

t r i al cour t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o hol d t o a hea r i ng on t he appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on fo r ne w tr ial
. A cc o rdin g ly , the ju d g m en t of the C o u rto f A p p ea ls i s rev erse d , the tri al co u rt ’s deni al of t he mot i on fornew t r i al i s aff i r m ed, and t he ca us e i s r emanded to the cour t of app eal s t o ad dress t he ap pell ant’ s second i ssue— viol at i on of h i s r i gh t t o d ue p rocess .

D E L I V E R E D : J une 17, 2009 PU BL I SH