NO. 07-06 -043 5-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 B JU NE 13, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JIMMY JOSEPH SA NCHEZ, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P AR ME R CO UNT Y; NO . 267 2.01; H ON ORABLE GOR DO N H. GR EEN , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ji mmyJo seph Sanc hez , pl eaded g u il ty to the o ffense of ag g ra v ated robb ery , a f irst degree felon y . A jury assessed h is punish me nt atconf inem entfor 30 years in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion . By tw o is sues , app ell ant cont ends that the S tate’ s c los ing arg ument w as eg re g iou sl y har mf ul and that, by faili ng to ob j ect to t he S ta te ’ s a rg um en t, t r i al c ou ns el p rov i de d i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e. W e affi r m.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und Appel lan t and a co- defendant broke int o the r ural re si dence of Dav id Si des. Si des a rrive d home w hil e appel lan t w as sti ll at the h ouse. The record reflect ed th at ap pel lan t produce d a h and g un and forced Si des to g o i nto t he resi dence w hil e appel lan t and hi s c odefenda n t se a rch ed th e resi dence for v alu abl es. Si des’ s w ife ar ri v ed on the s cene and w as w ar ned aw ay . W hil e att empti n g t o f le e the resi dence , s he w as fire d upon by appel lan t. Si des w as abl e to esc ape from appel lan t and hi de. A ppel lan t and hi s c odefendant t hen fled the s cene, but w ere l ater apprehended. At trial, app ellantplead ed g uilty to ag gravated robbery. T he fa cts of the case w ere prese nte d by the testim ony of Mr . and Mrs. Sides a nd o the r w itnesse s. Th e Sta te also produce d a jud g ment and sent ence show ing appel lan t had ple d g uil ty in New Me x ic o to the offenses of ag g ra v ated batte ry upon a peac e off ic er , a thi rd deg re e felony ; pos ses si on of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, methamphe tami ne; a nd resi sti ng , ev adi ng , or obs tr uct ing an off ic er . The re cord re flect ed that appel lan t had re cei v ed a par ti all y su spend ed s entenc e. The record furt her

sh ow ed th at ap pel lan t’ s s uspen ded s entenc e had been rev oked and appel lan t w as sent enced to a ter m of confinementof fiv e and a hal f y ears in New M ex ic o. App ellantpresen ted testim ony from his uncle an d au nt w ho request ed len iency on beh alf of app ellant . T h e u n c le testif ied ab outapp ellant ’s drug use a nd th at ap pellan t could ben ef it f rom th e reha bilitative serv ices of the T exas Departm entof Corrections. The ju ry retur ned a v erdict of confinementfor 3 0 y ears i n the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal J u s t ice -Institu tiona l Di v ision. It is fro m th is v erdict tha t app ellantapp eals.3

A p p e ll a n tco n t e n d s , t h a ta tt h e co n c l u s io n o f t ri a l, t h e p ro s e c u t o r r e fe re n c e d p a ro le la w. Fur ther , app ell ant c ontends t h a t h is counsel w as ine ffect iv e by fail ing to obj ectto the prosec utor ’s har mf ul sta tement. Jur y Arg ument Appel lan t’ s c omplai nt ab out a ll eg ed improper jur y arg ument w as not p re ser v ed as re q uired unde r the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1( a)
. The prese rv ation re qu ir e m entis mand ato ry for an alleged improp er argumen t. See Cockrell v . Stat e, 93 3 S.W .2d 73, 89 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 6). Failure to object to im p ro per jury argume nt forfeits an app ellant ’s rig ht to comp lain on app eal. Id. Accordingly , app ellant ’s firs t c omplai nt i s o v er ru led . Ineffect iv e As si sta nce of Couns el Cl aims of ine ffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el are meas ured ag ain st the tw o prong sta ndard of Sti ck lan d v . W ashi ng ton. Str ic kl and v . W ashi ng ton, 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct
. 2052, 80 L. Ed.2d 674 ( 1984) . Se e H er nandezv . St ate, 7 2 6 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 (Tex .C ri m.App.1 986) ( adop ti ng Str ic kl and as appl ic abl e s tandard under Tex as Con sti tuti on)
. Und er

the firs t prong of th e S tr ickl and t est , an appel lan t mus t s how that couns el' s p er

formance w as "defici ent." Str ic kl and, 466 U .S
. a t 687. "Thi s req uires show ing thatco unsel m a d e e rrors s o s er iou s t hat c ounse l w as not funct ion ing as the 'coun sel' guarante ed th e de fend antbythe Sixth Ame ndm ent ." I d. T o be successf ul in this re ga r d , a n a p p e ll a n t" m u s tsh o w th a tco u n s e l' s re p re s e n t a t io n fe ll b e lo w a n o bje c t ive stan dard of

reason able ness. " Id. at688 . Under the se c o n d p ro ng, an ap pellan t mu st4

show that the def ic ien t performanc e prej udi ced the d efense. Id. at 68 7. The appropr iat e stan dard for judging prejud ic e requires an app ellantto "sh ow tha t the re is a reaso nab le prob ability tha t, bu t for coun sel's unp rofession al errors, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing would hav e been different. A re asona ble probabi li ty i s a probabi li ty

su ff ici ent t o under mine confide nce in th e outc ome." Id. at 69 4. Appel lan t mus t prov e bot h prong s o f Str ic kl and by a preponderance of the ev ide nce in order to prev ail . Tong v . St ate, 25 S. W .3d 7 07, 7 12 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 00); McFarland v . Stat e, 84 5 S.W .2d 824 , 842 (Tex.Crim.App .19 92). W hen app ly ing the sta ndards of Str ic kl and, w e are mi ndful t hat, as an appe ll ate cour t, w e are to be hi g hly

deferen ti al and presume tha t c ounse l’ s a cti ons fell w it hin the w ide rang e of reason abl e and professi onal as si sta nce. Bone v . Stat e, 77 S.W .3d 8 28, 8 33 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. Therefore, ap pel lan t must ov ercome the pres umpti on th at, under the c ircums tanc es, the chal len g ed acti on mi g ht be co nsi dered s ound t ria l st rateg y . Ex p a rt e E ll is , 2 3 3 S
. W . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 (T e x. Cr im . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). An y a ll e ga t io n o f in e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

coun sel mu st be f ir m ly foun ded in the record and the reco rd mu st af f irmatively

dem onst rate th e alleged ine f fectiveness . B o n e, 77 S.W .3d at 835 . Failure to mak e the req uired s how ing of eit her def ic ien t performanc e or suff ic ien t preju dic e defeats the ineffecti v eness clai m. Str ic kl and, 466 U .S. at 70 0. Appel lat e c our ts loo k t o the tot ali ty of the represent ati on and the p arti cul ar ci rc umsta n ces of each cas e i n ev alu ati ng the ef fectiveness of

coun sel . E x p a rt e Nailor, 149 S.W .3d 125 , 130 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 4). Fi na l l y , w e m u s tre me mb e r t h a tw e a re n o tt o m a k e t h e s e d e t e r mi n a t i o n s b y a p p l i c a t i on of hinds ig ht. Thompson v . St ate, 9 S. W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
.5

App ellantconte nds th at trial co unse l was ine f fective w hen coun sel failed to object to the State’ s erroneous statement s duri ng f ina l arg uments . Appel lan t’ s compl ain t is about the S tate’ s sta tements cont ain ed in the beg inn ing of i ts cl osi ng arg uments on p uni shment . The Stat e s tated , You’v e he ard suggested to you for f iv e to 50 . W hen y ou rea d this, you w ill see that th e o n lyprotecti on of the communi ty thaty ou c an be ass ured of w oul d be hal f of

w hatev er

y ou s end hi m. S o i f y ou s end hi m for 40 y ears, he w oul d onl y

be t h e re f o r 2 0. That’ s w hat t hat i nst ru cti on s ay s, if he–i f he makes parole and if he d oes all of thos e thi ng s. Acc ordin g to appel lan t’ s theor y , thi s w as an attempt to i nappropr iat ely appl y the parole l aw to the appel lan t dur ing a ple a for a len g thy sent ence. Se e T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 37.07, § 4 (V er non Su pp. 2 0 0 7 ) (p ro v idi ng thatthe jur y sh all be i nst ru cte d aboutthe ex is tenc e of parole and g ood t ime credi t, how ev er , t hey are notto cons ide r the e xtent to w hich good cond uct tim e an d pa role a re t o be ap plied to the ind iv idua l defend ant ). A p p e ll a n tci t e s t h e c o u rtt o V a le n c ia v. S t a t e fo r t h e p ro p o s it io n t h a titis in e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

coun sel if

trial counse l fa ils to object t o a n i m prop er jury argumen t of

this nature. Val enc ia v . St ate, 966 S. W .2d 1 88, 1 90- 91 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 1998, st pet . ref ’d). Appe llant’s an alysi s o f t he facts of

t his case and t he app lication o f Valen cia are in error. W hen ana lyz ing the facts of Val enci a, it is ve ry clear that not only

did th e prosec utor m a ke a d ire ctap p lic a ti o n to th e d e fe n d a n t in th a t cas e , he al so ap p lie d th e co u rt ’s c h a rge er ro neous ly . In fact , t h e S tate’s appel lat e att or ney admi tted suc h before the appel lat e co u rt . In ou r ca se , t h e quo te d po rt io n of th e argu m e n t a p p e a rs to t ra ckt h e co u rt ’s c h a rge6

correctly. Further, in this case , the State ’s attorne y q ualif ied th e stat em entbystating, “if he mak es parole and if he d oes all of thos e thi ng s.” The “ all of tho se t h in g s” referred to by the State ’s attorne y

is easily discernab le as the elem ent s o f goo d time cred it of

w hich the t ri al cour

t adv is ed th e j ur

y i n the co urt’ s c harg e. Next, appel lan t seems to be st ati ng thatVal enci a s tands for t he proposi ti on th at t ri al c o u n s e l’ s fa il u re t o o bje c tt o t h e S t a t e ’s p a ro le la w a rg u m e n tco n s t it u t e s in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e as a matter

of law . That w as not the cour t’ s hol din g . The Val enci a c our t found inef fective assistance base d on the failure to obje ct to th e direct ap plication of the pa role law to that defendant and the inc or re ct math t hat lea d to the Stat e’s attor ney ass erti ng that a 40 y ear

se ntenc e w oul d resul t i n parole in tw o y ears. Ma ck v . Stat e, N o. 06 -0 6- 00222- CR , 200 7 T e x.A pp. L EX IS 3 765, at * 4 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana Ma y 17, 2007) ( not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. It w as the State’ s misl eadi ng calc ula ti on that w as ess enti al to the h olding in Vale ncia. Id. The refore, we are lef t w ith the propo sition th at failure to o bject to a pa role law

argumen t ma y

be inef fective assistanc e o f

c o u n s el; ho w ever, w e are m in d f u l th at an y

assertion of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel mu st be f irmly foun ded in t h e re c o rd . Bo n e , 7 7 S
. W . 3 d a t8 3 5 . I n t h is , c a s e we h a ve n o r e c o rd o f co u n s e l’ s st ra t e gy, other than the re cord of t he tr ial , and it does not meet the re q uirements of ov ercomi ng the presu mp tion th at the challen ged action might be consid ered soun d strate gy . Ex parte Ellis, 233 S. W .3d a t 330 . A rev iew of t ria l co u n sel’ s a rg ument l eads to a conc lus ion thattr ial couns el maynot hav e obj ect ed bec ause he feltthe issu e o f wh e ther the arg ument w as improper w as a v er

y cl ose one and h e m a y h a ve d eci ded notto ali enate the j ur y w it h7

o ve rr u le d o bje c t io n s . Ac c o rd in gl y, we o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s c o n t e n t io n re ga rd in g i n e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

coun sel. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led both of appel lan t’ s is sues , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.