### NUM BERS 13-0 7-00 187- CR 13-0 7-00 189- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
JESU S D E L EON , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 4 04t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lant, J e su s De Leon, w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h: (1 ) one c ount of ag g rav ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d ( “C ount 1") , see T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22. 021( a) (V er non Su pp. 2 007) ; ( 2) one count of s ex ual per formance by a chi ld (“ Cou nt 2") , see id. § 43 .2 5 (b ), (d) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07); an d (3) tw o cou nts of posse ssion of

childTh i s o p i n i o n w i l l d i s p o s e o fc a u s e n u m b e r s 1 3
- 0 7
- 1 8 7
- CR a n d 1 3
- 0 7
- 1 8 9
- CR. 1 T he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Jesus, at v ar i ous t i m es, sexua l l y assau l t ed h i s ei ght
- y ear - ol d ni ece. T he 2 r e c o r d f u r th e r r e f le c ts th a t a t l e a s t o n o n e o c c a s io n , J e s u s v id e o ta p e d h im s e lf e n g a g in g in o r a l s e x w ith h is ni ece a nd anot her epi sode ofor al sex wi t h a sm al l dog

. Fur t her m or e, t he r ecor d con t ai ns ev i dence of n u m e ro u s i m a g e s o f c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y fo u n d o n A d ria n D e L e o n ’ s c o m p u te r, w h i c h J e s u s a d m i tte d to downl oadi ng. 2 por nog ra phy

( “C ounts 3 an d 4") i n c ause number 13- 07- 187- CR , see id. § 43. 26 ( a ) ( V e r n on 2003)

. Addi ti onal ly , J esus w as charg ed by i ndi ctmentw it h tw enty counts of poss ess ion of chi ld por nog ra phy

i n c ause number

13- 07- 189- CR , see id. § 43. 26( a)

. J esus pl eaded 1 g uil ty to a ll o f

t he c harg es cont ain ed i n the i ndi ctment s a nd th e tr ial co urt as ses sed puni shment

. By

four is sues , J esus co ntends that his co nv ic ti ons shoul d be re v ersed and
rema nde d for trial base d on: (1) a conf lict of intere st w hich rend ered his trial co u n sel’s
ass is tanc e i neffect iv e; an d ( 2) the tr ial co urt’ s refusal to al low hi m to with d ra w h is gui lty pl ea . W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND I n Fe b ru a ry 2 0 0 6 , Je s u s wa s in d ic t e d in ca u s e n u m b e r 1 3 -0 7 -1 8 7 -C R b y a C a me ro n C o u n t y g r a n d j u r y fo r t h e fo l l o w i n g c r i m e s : ( 1 ) a g g ra v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l to f a child; (2) sexual performa nce b y a child; an d (3) tw o cou nts o f p ossessio n of

child por nog ra phy

. Subs eq uentl y , in Jul y 2006, Jes us and his brother , Adr ian , w ere c harg ed by ind ic tment in caus e number 13-07 -1 89- CRw it h tw enty addi ti onal co unts of poss ess ion of chi ld por nog ra phy

. W hether Je sus co mmitt ed th ese cr imes i s n ot ati ss ue; J esus admi tted
on s ev eral occ asi ons that he committ ed these cr imes

. The is sue in thi s a ppeal per tai ns 2 pr imar il y to the l eg al re present ati on prov ide d to Jes us by Gar y Or teg a. On M ay 30, 2006, Jes us filed a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce of chi ld por nog ra phy obtai ned as a resul t of an a ll eg edl y i mprop er search and sei z ure of the hous e w here J esusT he p l ea a gr eem ent , whi ch Jesu s si gned, a l s o s t ated t hat , am ong ot her t hi ngs, Jesus was not 3 c o e rc e d to e n te r i n to th e p l e a a g re e m e n t. 3 and A d rian re si ded. Je sus fil ed a sec ond moti on to su ppress on J une 6, 2006, al leg ing that all st atements he made to law enforc ement w ere i nv olu ntary, c oer ced, and enti ced. Spec ific all y , J esus note d tha t: Detectiv es from Brow nsv ill e P olice Department[,] in t aki ng th e con fe ssio n of

t he def end antJesu s D e L eon [, ] di d use hi s sist er[ ,] R oci o Adr ian a D e Leon [, ] and the mo th er of the v ict im to extrac t and co erce a st at em en tf r o m t h e d ef en d an td es p it e t h e fac th e ad v is ed the det ect iv e h e d id n otw ish t o speakto hi s sister . Th e sis te r w as al lo w ed to in te rro gat e t he def end antin t he presen ce o f det ect iv es. Fu rt her [, ] during the reading of defendant’s ri ghts[,] he adv ise d the detectiv es he w ish ed an at to rn ey

an d w as n otall ow ed to co mmu ni cat e w it h on e. (Emp hasis in original). On Jan uary 22, 200 7, th e Sta te f iled a mo tion for a n in cam era inspe ction o f certain evidence, w hich includ ed th e v ideo tap e Jesu s recorded dep icting himself engaging in
sex ual ac ts w it h hi s e ig ht- y ear-o ld nie ce and the i mag es of chi ld por nog ra phy found on t he comput er

us ed by both Je sus and Adr ian

. At a hear ing condu cte d on J anuar y 25, 2007, the S tate infor med the tr ial co urt t hat Jesus h ad a gr e e d t o w ithdra w his mot ion to supp ress in ex chan ge fo r the Sta te’s
w ithdra w al of

its mo tion for a n in cam era inspe ction of t he v ideo tap e and comp ute r images. Al so at t his heari ng , Jesus notified the tr ial courtof a ple a agreement betw een him and the Stat e w it h respec t t o bot h i ndi ctment s. As a re sul t of the ple a agreement, Jes us ple aded g uil ty to one c ount of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, on e c ount of se xual p e rfo rm a n ce b y a c h ild , a n d two co u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n of

ch ild po rn o gra p h y. In exch a n ge 3 for the p lea, th e Sta te agreed to dism iss the en tire indictm entaga in s tA drian in cau se number 13- 07- 189- CR

.T he r ecor d cont ai ns docum ent at i on o fO r t ega’ s r epr esent at i on o fJesus. T hi s docu m ent pr ov i des 4 th a t “ [d ]e f e n d a n t, J E S U S D E L E O N , r e ta in e d G A R Y O R T E G A , a n d h e c o n s e n ts to G A R Y O R T E G A ’s appea r ance as at t or ney of recor d i n t hi s cause . ” T he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat O r t ega f i l ed a n ap pear ance of counsel as t o A dri an on Febr uar y 5, 200 7, app r oxi m at el y t wo weeks af t er Jesus ent er ed i nt o t he p l ea a g re e m e n t w i th th e S ta te

. T h i s d o c u m e n t p ro v i d e d th a t “[d ]e fe n d a n t, A D R I A N DE L E ON , r et ai ned G AR Y A. OR TE GA , and he consent s t o G A R Y A . O R T EG A ’ s a p p e a ra n c e a s a tto rn e y o f re c o rd i n th i s c a u s e .”
4 On M ar ch 5, 2007, the tr ial cour t sent enced Jes us to: ( 1) fiftyy ears’ i mpri sonment for th e one countof

agg ra v ated sex ual assaul t of a c hil d; ( 2) tw enty y ears’ i mpri sonment for th e one countof sex ual per formance o f

a c hil d; an d ( 3) ten y ears’ i mpri sonmentfor each of the tw o counts of poss ess ion of chi ld por nog ra phy

. The tr ial co urt ordered al l of t h e se n t e n c e s im p o s e d t o ru n co n c u rr e n t ly. On ap pe a l, J e s us stat es tha t Gary Ortega represe nte d bo th brot hers in the se ma tters. Jesu s a lleges th at a fam ily m em ber later disclosed t o him thatOrtega w as pa id 4 $3, 500 .00 to represe nt Ad rian. Jesus argues t h a tO rt ega never notif ied him of this pay ment. Je sus cont ends that once the p ay ment w as re cei v ed, O rt eg a beg an to pursue a s trateg y

adv erse to hi s l eg al int erest s, w hic h i ncl uded pers uadi ng Jesus to ple ad g uil ty to al l charg es in ex chang e for the d is mis sal of the c harg es ag ain st Adr ian

. As suc h, J esus arg ues that a c onfli ct of inte re st ex is ted, thus r e n d e rin g Or teg a’s as si sta nce as couns el ine ff ect iv e. The Stat e c ounters J esus ’s reci tation of the facts by

arg uin g thatw hen J esus entered int o the ple a ag re ement, he w as re present ed by Or teg a, but Adr ian had not ye t
sec ur ed represent ati on. The Stat e c ontends thatbec ause Or teg a w as not the a ttor ney of record for Adrian at the t ime Je sus ent ered in to the plea agreem ent , no con f lict of interest
ex is ted. On March 14 , 200 7, Jesus f iled a pro se m otion to w ithdra w pleas of g uilt, a pro seO n ap peal , Jesus f ocuses on t he l egal r epr esent at i on p r ov i ded by O r t ega and t he t r i al cour t ’ s al l eged 5 re fu s a l to c o n s i d e r d e fe rr e d a d ju d i c a ti o n a s p u n i s h m e n t.

Phi l i p Cow en was appoi nt ed as Jesus’ s appel l at e counsel

. T he eff ect i v eness ofhi s r epr esent at i on 6 i s n o t t h e s u b je c t o f th i s a p p e a l

. 5 noti ce of appeal , and a pro s e moti on to appeal w it h the tr ial co urt rais ing i ss u e s as t o Or teg a’s effect iv eness as co unsel , among othe r thi ng s. On M ar ch 15, 2 007, Jes us filed 5 a pro s e m oti on to req uest co urt- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l. The t ri al cour t c erti fied 6 Jes u s ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l o n M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7

. O n A p r i l 2 , 2 0 0 7 , J e s u s fi l e d a n amended moti on for new

tr ial and moti on i n ar re st of judg ment, both of w hic h the t ri al cour t den ied on Apr il 9, 2007. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Our rev iew of co unsel 's per

formance must be hi g hly deferen ti al. Strickland v. W ashi ngton , 4 6 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 9 (1 9 8 4 ). A d e fe n d a n ts e e k i n g re li e f fo r i n e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel mustdemons trate that: ( 1) co unsel 's per formance faile d to
cons ti tute re asona bly

effect iv e as si sta nce by fall ing bel ow

an o bje cti v e s tandard of
reaso nab lene ss und er the p rev ailing p rofession al norm s; and (2) the re is a reaso nab le prob ability tha t, bu t for coun sel's def icient pe rforma nce, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing w ould hav e been different. Id. at 694; Bone v . St ate , 77 S.W .3d 8 28, 833 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02). The burden of prov ing i n e f f e cti v e as si sta nce of couns el is on t he appe ll ant a nd req uires proof bya preponderance of the ev ide nce. Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 06 n. 1 (Tex . C ri m. App. 19 9 1) ; Can non v . St ate , 668 S.W .2d 401 , 403 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84). An allegatio n of

inef fective assistance of

co unse l w ill be su staine d on ly if it is firm ly founded i n the record. Mc Far lan d v . St ate , 928 S.W .2d 482 , 500 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 6); Stone v. State , 17 S. W .3d 348 , 350 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 0, pe t. ref 'd).6

Effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el is g aug ed by the total ity

of the represent ati on from the p re -t ri al re present ati on of the acc used throug h the p uni shmentst ag e of the tr ial

. Ex par te Walk er , 777 S.W .2d 427 , 431 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89). T hus, the trial as a whole must be rev iew ed and not i sol ated inc ide nts of couns el' s p er formance. Can non , 668 S. W .2 d at4 03

. Th e s ta nd ard of r ev i ew for in effecti v e as s i s ta nc e of co un s el is the s am e for al l phase s o f the tr ial

. Her nandez v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 770, 772 (T e x. Crim . App. 199 9). Claims of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel base d on conf licts of in t e rest are
c o n t ro ll e d b y Cuy

ler v. Sul li van , 446 U.S. 335 (1980 ), a cas e d e c id ed four years before Str ickl and

. See Monr

eal v. Sta te , 947 S .W .2d 5 59, 564 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97). Unde r this aut hority, an actu al conf lict of interest e x ists i f

c o u n s e l is req uired to make a choice betw een adv anci ng hi s c li ent' s i nteresti n a fai r tr ial or adv anci ng o ther

i nterest s t o the detr iment of hi s cl ien t' s int er est

. Id. at 564. A d efendant demons trates a Cuy ler v iol ati on if he c an s how

that : (1 ) his co unsel w as burdened by an actua l confli ct of inte re st; and (2 ) the c onfli ct had an adv erse eff ect on spec ific ins tanc es of couns el' s p er formance. Cuy

ler , 446 U .S. at 34 8- 50. How ev er , t he c onfli ct must be more tha n merely sp ecul ati v e. Jam es v. State , 763 S.W .2d 776 , 7 7 8 -7 9 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89). Until a def end antshows his
couns el act iv ely

represent ed c onfli cti ng i nterest s, he has not e sta bli shed the p re dic ate for his cl aim of ineffectiv e as si sta nce. Cuy ler , 446 U .S. at 350. A show ing of the "p oss ibi li ty of a confli ct of inte re st" is not suffici ent t o ov ertur n a c ri minal co nv ic ti on. Id. How ever, if an appe ll ant s how s a n ac tual co nflict, preju dic e i s p re sumed. Id.O n Apr i l 19, 200 7, t he St at e f i l ed a m ot i on t o r econsi der t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng o fper m i ssi on f or 7 J e s u s to a p p e a l o r, a l te rn a ti v e l y , t o ju d i c i a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e th a t J e s u s h a s re n e g e d o n th e p l e a a g re e m e n t. I n i t s m ot i on, t he St at e ar gues t hat Jesus expl i ci t l y wai v ed h i s r i ght t o ap peal i n t he p l ea a gr eem ent and t hat Jesus d i d no t pr ov i de a ny ev i dence dem onst r at i ng t hat t he wai v er ofappeal was i nv ol unt ar y . T he St at e f ur t her ar gued t hat Jesus ha s re ne ged on t he p l ea a gr eem ent by f i l i ng h i s not i ce of app eal

. T he St at e al so ackn ow l ed ge d i n i t s m ot i on t hat i t “ wi l l be seeki ng t o r e- i ndi ct Adr i an De Leon, t he co
- def endan t i n cau se n u m b e r 0 6 -C R -2 7 4 6 -G .” 7 III . A N AL Y S IS In hi s first three i ss ues on appe al, Je sus tak es is sue w it h the represent ati on provided by Ortega. Specif ically , Jesus con ten ds tha t a conf lict of interest a rose be cause Or teg a represent ed bot h hi m and hi s b ro ther , both of w hom had adv erse defenses. Je sus further arg ues that he w as ess entia lly left w it hout couns el becau se Or teg a represent ed A d ri a n t o h is d e t ri m e n t

. F in a ll y, J e s u s a s s e rt s t h a tO rt e ga ’s re p re s e n t a t io n wa s in e f fe c t ive
u n d e r t he Stric kland

harm ana ly sis becau se Ortega failed to urge a motio n to sup press under ar ti cl e 38. 23 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re . See S tr ickl and , 466 U. S. 487; T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.23 (V er non 200 5)

. The Stat e c ounters b y arg uin g that : (1 ) Jes us has w aiv ed hi s ri g ht t o appea l, and, therefore, thi s a ppeal sh oul d be dis mis sed; and (2 ) th e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t d e mo n s t ra t e t h a t O rt e g a l a b o r e d u n d e r a n a c t u a l c o n fl i c t of int er est

. 1. Je sus’ s R ig htt o A pp eal W e beg in by

address ing the Stat e’s w aiv er arg ument. The Stat e c ontends thatas 7 a par t of Je sus ’s ple a ag re ement w it h the Stat e, Jes us admit ted g uil t and ex press ly ag re ed to w aiv e al l ri g hts to appeal i f the tr ial co urt acc e p te d the Sta te’ s s entenc ing
recom me nda tion. The State note s that the trial court did sen ten ce Jesu s in accorda nce w it h the pl ea ag re ement an d tha t t herefore, th e t ri al cour t di d nothav e aut hor ity to “unwaiv e” Jesus’s lost rig ht to app eal.8

“I n a p lea barg ain c a se —t hat i s, a c ase in w hic h a d efendant’ s p lea w as g uil ty or nol o c ontende re and the p uni shmentdi d not exc eed the punis hment rec ommended bythe prose cuto r and agreed to by the defend ant—a de fend antmay appe al only: (A ) those matters t hat w ere rais ed by w ri tten moti on fil ed and ru led on b efore t ri al; or ( B) after g etti ng the t ri al cour

t’ s p e rmi ss ion to appeal

. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2( a) (2 ); see C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 44.02 (V er non 200 6) ( pro vidi n g t h a t a defendant i n any cr imi nal ac ti on may appeal a g uil ty ple a if his puni shment does not e x ceed the p uni shmentrecommended by the p ro sec utor

and if he has per mis si on of the tr ial court , ex ceptfor m atters t hat h av e been
ra is ed by w ri tten moti on pr ior to tr ial ). “The pla in impor t of [former

r ule 25.2 (b )( 3) ] i s t hat app eal f rom p lea-ba rg ain case s are limited to the situat ions set forth in the rule.” W oods
v. State , 108 S.W .3d 314, 316 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2003)

. Therefore, be fore ex amini ng the
re cord, w e first deter mine if the a gre ement i n thi s c ase inc or porated a “ puni shment
recom me nde d by the prosecu tor and agreed to by the de fend ant .” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2(a)(2). An ag re ement be tw een t he St ate a nd an acc used maynot neces sar il y i ncl ude as one of i ts ter ms an ag re ed puni shmentrecommendat ion

. Shank le v. State , 119 S.W .3d 808, 813 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ; Ram ir ez v. Sta te , 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 5 n . 4 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, no p et.)

. Any co nces si on by

t h e S ta te i n ex chang e for the
acc used' s p lea c re a te s a pl ea barg ain

. Ram ir ez , 89 S.W .3d a t 225 n.4. O nly a pl ea barg ain thati ncor porates an a g re ed re commendat ion as to puni shmentthati s a cc epted by the cour t, how ev er , t ri g g ers rest ri cti ons on our re v iew pow er co ntai ned i n r ule 25.2 (a )( 2) of the r ule s o f appell ate p ro cedure. Id. ; see T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2(a)(2).9

In Sha nkle , t he c ourt o f c riminal appeal s d eli neated tw o mai n c ateg or ies of ple a b a rga i n s t h a t a f

fe ctpu n ish m e n t: (1) s e n te n ce -b a rga in in g; a n d (2) ch a rge -b a rga in in g. Sha nkle , 119 S.W .3d a t 813

. In ad dit ion to the sent ence- barg ain ing thatoc curs i n the
more famili ar

form of an a g re ement t o a f ini te or defini te pu nis hment, an ag re ement t o a puni shmentc a p also is an "a g re ed recommendat ion as to puni shment ." Threadg ill v. State , 120 S.W .3d 8 71, 8 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 3, no pet. ). Si mil ar ly , an agreem entto dism iss a pend ing cha rg e, or no t to bring an available cha rg e, is charg e- barg ain ing thatef fecti v ely puts a cap on puni shmentat the max imum s entenc e for the c harg e tha t i s n ot di smi ss ed. Sha nkle , 119 S.W .3d a t 813

. The record i n the presentca se demonst ra tes thatthe p le a a g re ement i nv olv ed sent ence barg ain ing and that the tr ial co urt s entenc ed J esus i n ac cordance w it h the pl ea ag re ement. Je sus ’s pl ea ag re ement w it h the S tate filed on J anuar y 25, 2007, prov ide d tha t in exchange for a plea of guilty , the State w ould “cap pun ishm entat seventy- f iv e y ears in the Te x as Depa rtme nt of Corrections, ” and mo reover, the Sta te w ould “dismiss the entire ind ic tment ag ain st the c o- defendant [Adr ian ] .

. . . ” The tr ial co urt acc e pted the p lea ag re ement an d s ubseq uentl y se ntenc ed J esus to ser v e a max imum of fifty

y ears’ i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cor re cti ons, w hic h w as w it hin the sent enci ng ca p recommended by the S tate and, acc ordin g ly , “t he puni shment did not ex ceed the p uni shmentrecommended by the prosecu tor and agreed to by the de fend ant. . . .” T E X R. A PP . P. 25.2( a) (2 ). W e mustnow

determi ne if Jes us rai sed matters b y w ri tten moti on th at w ere r ule d upon be fore t ri al or if he obtai ned per mis si on from the t ri al cour t t o appea l. See i

d. The
re cord reflect s t hat t he tr ial co urt c erti fied J esus ’s r ig ht to a ppeal on M ar ch 28, 2 007. In10

it s c erti ficat ion of Jes us’ s ri g ht to appeal , t he tr ial co urt pl aced an “ X ” cor re spond ing to the pr e- pr int ed s tatement : “i s a plea- barg ain case, but t he tr ial co urt has g iv en per mis si on to app eal, a nd th e de fend anthas the rig ht of app eal.” Beca use this is a plea bargain case and bec ause Jes us o b tained pe rmi ss ion from t he tr ial co urt t o appea l, w e c oncl ude t hat J e s u s h a s p r e s e r

v e d h i s i s s u e s fo r a p p eal

. Se e M o n real v. State , 99 S.W .3d 6 15, 6 17 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ( hol din g thatw hen a defendant w aiv es his r ig ht t o appea l, he may
n o ta p p e a l u n l e s s t h e t r i a l c o u rtg ra n t s p e r mi s s i o n) ; se e also Bar cenas v. Sta te , 137 S.W .3d 865 , 866 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist. ] 200 4, no pet. ) ( per curiam ) ( sam e); Zar agoz a v . St ate , No

. 1 3
- 0 4
- 3 9 1 -C R, 2 0 0 5 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 3 4 4 1 , a t** 4 -5 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti May 5, 2005, no pet .) ( “A

v ali d w aiv er

of appeal , w hether

neg oti ated
or non- neg oti ated, w il l prev ent a defendant from appeal ing w it hout the c onsen t of the tr ial court . . . .”). 2. Conflict of Interes t Jesus’s ent ire a rg um entp ertain ing to a n alleged con f lict of interest h inges upo n his
ow n c oncl usor

y al leg ati on th at O rt eg a represent ed bot h J esus and Adr ian pr ior to enter ing into th e plea agreeme nt w ith the State . How ever, the record do es no t supp ort Jesus’s cont ent ion. T he record dem onst rates th at Jesu s ente red his guilty plea wi th th e trial court on Ja nua ry

25, 20 07, p u rs u a nt to the ple a agreem entw ith the State . As prev iously menti oned, Or

teg a fil ed an appearance of couns el sta ti ng thathe represent ed Adr ian on Febr uar y 5, 2007. The re cord does not re flect that Or teg a beg an represent ing Adr ian pr ior to Feb ruary 5 , 2 0 0 7

. J e sus ha s not pro v ided any ev iden ce tha t Ortega labo red un der a confli ct of inte re st w hil e he re present ed hi m. M oreov er , Jes us has not p ro v ide d anyT h is a r g u m e n t i s d is in g e n u o u s b e c a u s e th e p le a a g r e e m e n t d e m o n s tr a te s th a t J e s u s h i m s e lf 8 bar gai ned f or t he d i sm i ssal of“t he ent i r e i ndi ct m ent aga i nst t he co
- def endan t [ Adr i an] i n Cause num ber 06- C R
- 2746- G

. ” I n ad di t i on , the r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat O r t ega r epr esent ed Je sus an d no t Adr i an d ur i ng t he negot i at i on o ft he p l ea a gr eem ent ; t her ef or e, J es us h ad the assi st ance ofcoun sel dur i ng t he p l ea negot i at i ons.

Jesus has n ot pr ov i ded t hi s C our t wi t h au t hor i t y orar gum ent est abl i shi ng t hat Jesus was coer ced 9 o r o th e r w is e e n te r e d in to th e p le a a g r e e m e n t in v o lu n ta r ily. In f a c t, th is is s u e w a s n o t e v e n a r g u e d o n a p p e a l. Jesus m er el y asser t ed t hi s cont ent i on v i a un suppor t ed a l l egat i ons i n hi s pr o se not i ce ofapp eal t o est abl i sh th a t O rte g a fa i l e d to p ro v i d e e ff e c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l

. 11 ev ide nce that Orteg a w as pai d $3, 500 t o representAdr ian to “g et t he St ate t o drop th e c h a rg e s . . . ” b e yo n d h is o wn sp e c u la t ive st a t e m e n t s . B a s e d o n t h e re c o rd b e fo re u s , we conc lud e tha t no confli ct of inte re st ex is ted. See C uyler , 4 4 6 U .S . at350 (n oti ng thata show ing of the “ poss ibi li ty of a c onfli ct of inte re st” i s n ot s uff ic ien t t o ov ertur n a c ri minal
conv ic ti on) ; see als o Jam es , 763 S .W .2d a t 778 -79 (holdin g tha t a conf lict o f interest m ust be more tha n s pecul ati v e)

. 3. I nef fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel Ess enti all y , J esus ’s i ss ues on appe al per tai n to his frust ra ti on that he re cei v ed fifty y ears’ imp risonm entw hile the charges against his broth er w ere droppe d. Jesus argues, 8 in many of his pro s e moti ons, thatthe re cord shoul d be suppl emented w it h the foll ow ing it ems w hic h too k p lac e off the re cord: (1 ) that he di d notans w er tr uthfull y

w hen t he tr ial
cour t as ked him if hi s p lea w as coerced; (2) his si ste r, Rosi o De Leon , w as “c ompell ed and
coerce d” to con f ront him and ask him que s tions to obta in unt rue stat em ent s w hich w ere used ag ain st him; and (3 ) he li ed, based on i nst ru cti ons from Or teg a, w it h respect t o the tr ial co u rt ’s q uest ion s a s t o w hether he h ad read t he pre- sent ence inv est ig ati on repor t,
w hether he u ndersto od the nature of the pl ea ag re ement, and w hether he u ndersto od th e ri sk s o f the pl ea ag re ement. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 34. 5(c)(1 ), ( d ). I n su ppo rt of record 9 supp lem ent ation , Jesus argues th at th e af o re m e n tione d item s estab lish thatOrtega’s12

act ion s a mounted to ineffect iv e assi sta nce of couns el. H ow ev er , on appeal , J esus note s tha t “[a]s to th e resolut io n of this issue, it ma kes v erylittle dif feren ce if

this Court suppl ements the re cord. Rat her , as w il l be show n below , the factthat there w as an ac tual conf lict should have led to ap poin tm entof new coun sel . . . .” Jes us als o arg ues that becau se Or teg a w it hdre w

hi s mot ion to suppress the
v ideo tap e an d the comp ute r im ages cont aining child po rnography, Ortega’s performa nce fell bel ow

that w hic h i s a cc eptabl e. How ev er , J esus fail s t o ov er come t he presumpt ion that Or teg a’s w it hdraw al of his moti on to su ppress “mig ht be co nsi dered s ound t ri al strateg y .” See S tr ickl and , 4 6 6 U.S . 6 8 9 (quo ti n g Michel v. Loui si ana , 350 U.S. 91, 100 -01 (195 5)). T h e rec o rd in d ica te s t h a t O rt e ga a gre e d to w it h d ra w h is m o ti o n to su p p re ss in exch a n ge for th e St ate’ s w it hdraw al of its moti on for an i n c amera i nspecti on of th e vi deotape and
com put er images. W e be liev e tha t the re wa s so me basis for conclud ing that Ortega’s condu ct w as strateg ic in nature; t herefore, further i nq uir y i s i mprop er . See Gar

ci a v. St ate , 57 S. W .3d 4 36, 4 40 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2 0 0 1 ) ( noti ng thati n the abs ence of ev ide nce of
coun sel's reason s for the ch allenged cond uct, th e ap pellat e cou rt w ill assum e a strate gic
mo tiv ation and w ill notconclud e tha t the cond uct w as de f icient un less the cond uct w as so outrag eous that no c ompe te n t a tt o rney w oul d hav e eng ag ed i n i t) ; Aldr ich v . St ate , 104 S.W .3d 8 90, 8 96 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ("A ppel lat e cour ts can ra re ly deci de th e i ss ue of
unre ason able p e rforma nce b ecau se the app ellate record rarely spea ks to the strategic
re asons that counsel m ay hav e c onsi dered.") ; see als o Bel l v. State , 867 S.W .2d 9 58, 9 61 (Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1994, no pet .)

. In rev iew ing the total ity of t h e r e present ati on, w e c oncl ude t hat J esus fail ed to13

est abl is h tha t a confli ct of inte re st ex is ted a nd th at O rt eg a’s co nductamounte d to ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el; thus , he fail ed to sa ti sfythe Str ickl and t e s t

. Ac c o rd in gl y, w e ov er ru le Jes us’ s first three i ss ues on appe al. 4. D ef erred Adj ud icat io n and Jesu s’s M ot io n to Wit hd rawH is G ui lty Ple a In his fourth issue on a ppe al, Jesu s argues thatthe trial court erred in rejecting his
re q uestfor d eferred adj udi cat ion bec ause it had reje cte d hi s p lea ag re ement w it h the Sta te
w it hout affordin g hi m the oppor tuni ty to w it hdraw

hi s p lea of g uil ty

. Con v ersel y , t he St ate
argue s th a t there w as no ag re ement for deferred adj udi cat ion

. Ins tead, the ple a ag re ement w as merel y an o pen pl ea th at c apped p uni shmentat sev enty -fiv e y ears. The record does not suppo rtJe sus ’s co ntent ion that he barg ain ed for a chanc e to be pl aced on c ommunit y su per v is ion

. In fact , t he pl ea ag re ement prov id e s, i n rele v ant par t, that: “ The Stat e oppos es deferred adjudi cat ion in both C ause numbers, 06- CR -0 405- G and 06- CR -2 746- G.” C le a rly , t here w as no meeti ng of the mi nds w it h respect t o the is sue of deferred adj udi cat ion

. See E x p ar te Mouss azadeh , 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 1 -1 2 (T e x. Cr im. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ W e a p p l y g e n e ra l c o n t ra c t l a w p r i n c i p l e s t o d e t e r mi n e t h e c o n tent of a pl ea agreement in a cri minal case” and a rev iew ing courtw il l not i mply a de ferred findi ng ele ment of co v enant “u nle ss i t app ears from the ple a agreement’ s ex press terms that both par ti es cl ear ly

co ntempl a te d thi s e lementor co v enant” ). I nst ead, the p lea ag re ement p ro vid e d , amo ng othe r things, that th e Sta te agreed to cap p unish me nt atsev ent y -f ive y ears i n ex chang e for Jes us’ s p lea of g uil ty

. Mo re ov er , ev en th oug h the tr ial co urt s tat e d t h a t it w as findi ng Je sus g uil ty at the p l e a h e a r i n g , t h e c o u rt h a d n o t e n t e r e d a w r i t t e n j u d g me n t ; t h e r e fo r e , i t w a s sti ll enti tl edW e n o te th a t a s u b s e q u e n t a m e n d m e n t to a rti c l e 4 2 .1 2 o f th e c o d e o f c rim i n a l p ro c e d u re p ro h i b i ts 10 def er r ed a dj udi c at i on i ft he d ef endan t “ i s char ged wi t h an off ense underSect i on 2 1. 11, 22. 011, or22. 021, P en al C od e, reg ard l es s of t he ag e o f t he vi c t i m . . . . ” C O D E O F C R I M P ROC
. A NN
. ar t

. 4 2. 12 , s ec . 5 ( d) ( 2) ( A) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). H o w e v e r, th i s i s s u e w a s n o t ra i s e d w i th e i th e r th e tri a l c o u rt o r o n a p p e a l

. 14 to cons ide r deferred adj udi cat ion

. See C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 42.01, se c. 1 ( Ver non 10 2006) ; see als o Ande rs on v . St ate , 937 S.W .2d 6 07, 6 09 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1996, no pet .) ( hol din g thatthe tr ial co urt di d notl ose author ity t o g ra nt de ferred adj udi cat ion at the sent enci ng hear ing after the d efendant’ s s ti pul ati on of g uil t and the tr ial
cour t’ s fin din g of g uil t) ; Power s v . St ate , 727 S .W .2d 3 13, 3 16-1 7 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Di st. ] 198 7, pe t. re f’d) (“ Unt il the cour t f ind s the app ell ant g uil ty and enters t he c onv ic ti on, itca n defer the a dju dic ati on of g uil t

. . . . [T]he cour t’ s oral findi ng of g uil t di d notdi v estthe
cour t of pow er

to gra n t subseq uent deferred adj udi cat ion .” ). F urther more, Je sus ’s tr ial counsel d id n o t make a req uestfor d eferred adj udi cat ion at the s entenc ing hear ing as illustrated bythe followi ng statem ent s: MR. ORTEGA : . . . . [ W ] e are asking the cou rt to be m ercif ul towards him and in fa ct consid er the min imu m punishm ent of w hat the y have asked for, Judg e, and consi der

a coupl e y ears of psy chol og ic al couns eli ng and, i n fact, cons ide r fiv e y ears o f punis hmen t on one i ndi ctment , J udg e; fiv e y ears o f p u n is h m e n to n t h e se c o n d in d ic t m e n to f p o s s e s s io n o f

c h il d p o rn o gr a p h y. The p lea ag re ement i n thi s c ase, Ju dg e, w as that the i ndi ctment s r un conc ur re nt. I know

w e are as ki ng for t he mi nimum i n thi s c ase. . . . Mo re ov er , t he rec ord reflect s t hat t he tr ial co urt ac cept ed J esus ’s pl ea ag re ement and s entenc ed J esus w it hin the ter ms of the ag re ement. There f o re , b a se d on the foregoing, w e con clude thatthe trial court did not err in ref u s in g t o d efer f indings of g uilt and in ref using to perm it Jesus to wi thd raw his ple a o f

g u ilty af ter the impo sition of

his sent ence. See O rt

iz v. Sta te , 933 S.W .2d 102, 104 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ( hol din g that a pl ea ag re ement i s a co ntract ual ar ra ng ement an d that it i s n ot bi ndi ng on a ll of the15

neces sar

y par ti es unti l suc h par

ti es ag re e to t he te rms of the c ontract ); see als o Holl and
v. State , 112 S.W .3d 251, 255 (Tex . App.–Aus ti n 2003, no pet.) ( “I f the c our t c hoose s t o a c c e p t the plea , it is bou nd to carry out the term s of the agreem ent .”). Accordi n gl y, we overrule Jesus’s fourth issue on a ppe al. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of J esus ’s is sues on appeal , w e aff ir m the jud g ments of the tr ial
cour t.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX .R .A PP .P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 15t h day

of Ma y , 200 8.