After Perez’s appe llate counsel filed a br ief on Pere z’s behalf, Pere z filed a “pro se motion 1 to rejec t counsel on appe al,” in which he cr iticiz es counse l’s brief a nd reque sts to represe nt himself. We o v e r r u le th e motion. S

ee M artinez v. Court of Appeal , 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000) (holding that there is no feder al constitutional right to s el f- re prese ntation on appea l); Ex parte Thomas , 90 6 S. W .2 d 2 2, 24 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ) ( “ Th e ri g ht o f s e lf -r e pr e se ntatio n is no t a

lic e ns e to capr iciously

upset the appe llate timetable or to thwa rt the orde rly

and fa ir administrat i on of jus tic e .” ); C

o rm i e r v . Stat e , 85 S.W .3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding that there is no state constitutional or statutory rig ht to self-re prese ntation on appea l and that reque sts to procee d pro se on a ppeal should be de cided on c ase- by -ca se basis). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 773 -CR

Ant honyJa m e s P e r e z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-08 -37 4 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted a

ppellant Anthony

J ames Pere z of t h e offense of burg lary of a habitation. See Te x. Pe na l Co de Ann. § 30 .0 2 ( Wes t 20 03 ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a sse sse d p un ish me nt, enhanc ed by

prior fe lony

convictions, at 60 y ear s’ imprisonment. I n two issues on ap p eal, Perez

a sse rt s th a t th e State re pe a te dly vio la te d a motio n in limin e re la te d to e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s and c la ims that his trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e. We will affirm the judg ment of convic tion. 12 BACK GR OUND The jury hear d evidenc e that two houses in Kyle wer e burg larized on May 10, 2006. The fir st house was owned by J immy Spivey and his then-wife , Ger aldine Gavrilov. Spivey testified that, w he n h e re tur

ne d h ome fr om r

un nin g e rr and s th a t da

y , h e no tic e d th a t th e do or e nte ri ngint o h is house fr om the g ara g e wa s open, and his dog , who was normally kept on a leash in the g ara g e during the day , was inside the house . Spivey further explained that he kept his g ara g e door lea ding to the drivewa y partially open duringthe day

so that the dog could go i n and out. Suspecting a bre ak-in, Spivey called the police. The office r who re sponded t o Spivey ’s call was Office r Jason Dibble of the Kyle Police Depa

rtment. When Office r Dibble a rrived, he first observe d that the door lea ding into the residenc e fr om the g ara g e “ha d been kic ked open, c ausing damag e to the door a nd the doorjamb itself.” A fter D ibble “cle are d the house” to make sure no one wa s inside the residenc e, he and Spivey walked throug h the house to de termine if any proper ty had been stolen. S p i vey testified that he did n ot observe a ny thing missing. H oweve r, he notice d that the lid of his laptop computer, w hich was loc ated in his bedroom, ha d been c losed. When Gavrilov returne d home later that afte rnoon, she notice d that a nec klace and a cubic z irconia ring were missing from the upsta irs bathroom. Gavrilov testified that she also observe d piece s of wood missing from the door e ntering into the house from the g ara g e, broken wood on the ca rpet inside, and some thing that looked “ like

a fo otp ri nt” “ ri g ht b e low

the do or kn ob ” wh e re the do or ha d be e n bro ke n. Th e po lic e did no t ob ta in fing erpr ints from any

objects in the house. Dibble te stified that h e d i d n o t d u s t the laptop for fi n ger p ri n t s b ec au s e h e d i d n o t wa n t t o ri s k d am agi n g t h e co mp u t er , an d h e d i d n o td u s tt h e ga ra ge entry door for fing erpr ints because it had been kic ked open by foot rathe r than by

hand.Roge rs testified that he did not know Car ol’s last name. 2 3 The sec ond house that was alleg edly burg larized was owne d by J ohn Roge rs. Rog ers testified that his house was loc ated on the sa me cul-de -sac as the S p i v ey s’ house, a lthough the houses wer e not adjac ent to eac h other. Ac cording to Roge rs, t heir houses were separ ated by another h o u s e th a t b e lo n g e d

to a w o ma nn a me d “ Ca rol.” Roge rs dre w a diag ram for the jury identify ing 2 the re lative locations of the house s on the cul-de -sac .

Roge rs testified that he w as at home taking c are of his infant son when some one ra ng his doorbell at ar ound 1:00 p.m. on May 1 0, 2006. Roge rs appr oache d the front door , looked throug h the peephole , and sawa man standingon the porc h. Roge rs did not rec og nize the man and d ecide d not to answer the door. I nstead, he went to the fa mily room and turne d on the television. Ho we ve r, a ft e r a co up le of min ute s, Rog e rs tho ug ht that “it’ s kind of str ang e that so me bo dy wo uld be wa lking a

round the ne ighbor

hood at about that time of day ,” so he de cided to look out his front window and se e if the pe rson was still around. Rog ers r eca lled, “I saw the individual wa lking f rom my h o u s e t h rough the stre et towar d Mr. Spivey ’s house.” Roge rs thoug ht that the individual was

“ jus t se lli ngso me thi ng ,” so he re tur ne d to the fa

mil y ro om. Approxim ately

20 minutes later, as Rog ers wa s holding his baby and sitting in the fa mil y ro om watc hin g te le vis ion , he he ard a c hir pin g so un d co min g fr om his ho me a larm sy ste m. Acc ording to Rog ers, that sound meant that a door or window had been opened. Roge rs stood up, turned around, and saw the individual he had seen ear lier standing in his kitchen. Roge rs assumed that the man had e nt ere d throug h the sliding g lass door in the kitchen, w hich was unloc ked at the time.4 Roge rs testified that the man put up his hands and said, “ Whoa, whoa.” Rog ers a sked him, “I s there something I can help y ou with? ” Rog ers testified that he was “ calm at the time,” but the man “se emed a

bit nervous, ag itated t hat I was there.” Acc ording to Roge rs, the man e x plained that his friend ha d told him t hat he wa s “g oing to lea ve some golf clubs on the patio” and that “he

c ou ld c ome pic k th e m up .” Whe n Ro g e rs a sk e d th e man w ho his fr ie nd wa s, the man to ld h im, “ Hi s name is Tom.” Rog ers informed hi m that “ther e is no Tom that lives here ,” and, a fter he “conve rsed a little bit” with t h e i ndividual, the man opene d the sliding door a nd “ra n throug h the bac ky ard.” Roge rs also testified that, a s they wer e talking , they

wer e “ma

y be seve n to eig ht fee t apar t from

eac h other.” Roge rs desc ribed the ma n as “a small person,” shor

ter than Rog ers, a

nd “in [the] rang e” of fiv e- fo o t -n i n e to five-f oot-ten inche s tall. Roger s also rec alled that the man w as we aringdark clothing, ha d dark ha ir, and ha d “almost like an I talian skin tone, like an olive skin tone.”

Af t er t h e m an l ef

t , R o ger s wa l k ed t o t h e fr o n t o f th e h o u s e a n d aga i nl o o k edt h ro u gh the front window. Rog ers testified that he saw the m an walking from his house to Carol’s house , wher e there was a “blac k vehicle” parke d either on or near Carol’s drive way . Roge rs testified that Carol lived by

herse lf and owned a g old vehicle. Rog ers a dded, “H e ac tually went beyond the black vehicle out into the cul-de-sac

. . . . I t was as thoug h he wa s talking on his ce ll phone, walking kind of in a c ircle a

nd then went—g ot in t h e v eh i cl e an d at that point backe d out” and “ sped down the street.” Roge rs testified that he did not se e anyone else in the vehicle. When a sked to descr ibe the vehicle, Rog ers testified that he “just reme mber[ed] it being a blac k SUV” with “c hrome whe els.” When asked if h e t h o u gh t i t might be “ a Ta hoe or somethinglike that,” Rog ers a nswere d, “At the time. Iknew it w as a GM ty pe vehic le, SUV.” Rog ers e x plained that he w as able to see “ theKe lly did no t pr ov ide fu rt he r t e sti mony

a bo ut t he natur e of

the wa rr ants . A s w e e xpla in 3 below whe n discussing Per ez’s motion in l imine, at the time of the tra ff i c s t op, Perez had a

n outstanding w arr ant out of Tra vis County

for bur g lary

. A picture of the ringwas a dmitted into evidence a s State’s Exhi bit 1. 4 5 side view of the backside of the ve hicle.” H e did not observe the vehicle ’s license plate number. A picture of a bla ck Yukon SUV was admitted into evidence . When asked if the ve hicle in the picture looke d like the vehicle he sawin the drivewa y , Roge rs t estified, “Yes, sir.” When a sked why he thoug ht it looked like the vehicle, Rog ers e x plained, “I reme mber the c hrome whe els and the w ay the whee l wells have—the black whe el well cove rs on them.”

On J uly 28, 2006, Offic er Phi llip Kelly of t he Austin Police Depa rtment perf

ormed a tra ffic st op on a blac k SUV for f ailing to sig nal a lane chang e. Of fice r Ke lly

descr ibed the vehicle a s a “blac k GMC Y ukon later discovere d to be a 1996 model” with a L ouisiana license plate. Th e dr ive r of the ve hic le wa s ide nti fi e d as Per e z. Whe n ask e d if Pe re z ha d “ any wa rr ants ,” Ke lly testified, “Ye s, he did.” Kelly then took Perez into custody and per formed a

n inventory

sear ch of 3 the ve hic le . O ne of

the ite ms K e lly

dis c ov e red was wh a t he de sc ri be d a s a “ sp or ts m e mor a

bil ia Dallas Cowboy

men’s ring .” Howe ver, K elly explained that it wa s not the kind of ring one puts on

a fi ng e r, bu t “ mor e lik e a larg e sc a le ri ng ” that c ou ld p os sib ly se rv e a s a

pa pe rw e ig ht. Ke lly

a dd e d th a t, i n his mind , “[j]us t the size of it an d the n the Da lla s Co wb oy and the sta r i n th e mid dle stood out.” 4 Th e pr op e rt y that w a s se ize d f

ro m Pe re z’s ve hic le wa s turn e d o ve r t o Offic er Ma son Fe inartz of the Austin Police Depa rtment. When a sked if one of the objects stood out in his mind, F einar

tz testified, “The re w as a unique ring . I t was a D allas Cowboy s commemorativeThe lineup wa s admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 5. 5 6 ring , fairly

larg e.” F einar

tz also t estified that it looked like a pa perw eig ht. On cross, Fe inartz ag ree d with defe nse counse l’s char acte rization of the ob j ec t as “a p aperweig ht in the shape of a ring .” Fe inartz also testified, “I

wasn’t sure if it was ac tually a Da llas Cowboy s ring when Ifirst observe d it. I t was v er y u n i q u e. I haven’ t seen a ny thing like that.” L ater

in his testim ony , he adde d, “I ’ve worke d burg lary

investigations for five y ear s while Iwas a d et ec t i v e, an d I ’ve ne ver se en a r ing like that. And I ’ve se ized numerous piece s of proper ty via sea rch w arr ants and such.” When asked by defe nse counse l if the ring had any “identifying ma

rks on it,” Fe inartz te stified, “I don’t reme mber any identify ing ma

rks. . . . Other

than the Da llas Cowboy s insignia a nd the star.” The Austin Police Depa

rtment place d a public announc ement on television about the ring . Ger aldi n e Gavrilov saw this announceme nt and re cog nized the ring . Gavr ilov testified that the ring, which she confirmed was actua lly used as a paperwe ight, was missing fr om her house, but she had not rea liz ed that it was mi ssing until she saw the announce ment. Acc ording to Gavrilov, the object had been located on a g lass table in the hallway near the front door . Fe inartz testified that G a v r i l o v c o n t a c t e d

t h e p o l i c e d e p art m e n t o n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 6 , c a m e i n t o F e i n art z ’ s o f f i c e t h a td a y, and “positively

identified that ring .” F einar tz t hen g ave the ring to her. After that, Fe inartz testified, he contac ted t he Ky le P olice De partment a nd advised them that the ring had been claimed. He also informed them that the obje ct had be en seized fr om the vehicle Perez had been operating when he was arr ested. Fe inartz the n prepa red a photo lineup th a t c o n ta in e d a p h o to g r a p h o f Pe r e z an d p r o v id e d th e li n e u p to D e te c ti v e Ja c o b L uria of the Ky le Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt. 5I n ad d i t i o n to the homes of Ji mmy Spivey and John R og ers, Per ez was ac cused of 6 burg larizing the home s of five othe r individuals in Hay s County . Eac h of the seve n counts involved a diffe rent home. B e c a us e the c ount i nv olv ingthe burg lary a t R ogers ’s home ha d b e e n s e ve re d, de fe ns e 7 c ouns e l ob

je c te d to the int

ro du c tio n o f a

ny e vid e nc e re la te d to that off ens e. How e ve r, the Sta te argued that, bec ause the two burg laries oc curr ed at aro u n d t he same time and place , the evidenc e involving the Rog ers bur g lary was e ssential to understanding the contex t and the circ umstances of the events surrounding the burg lary at Spivey ’s home. The district court over ruled the obje ction, and Pe re z do e s n ot c omp la in o f t hat r uli ngon a pp e a l. 7 Detec tive Luria testified that he showe d the lineup to J ohn Roge rs. Luria e x plained that the lineup containe d six photogr aphs of men that appea red to be of the s ame r ace , same g ener al build, and same ha ir color. The photogr aph of Per ez was on the top, upper rig ht-hand c orner

of the lineup. Acc ording to Luria, whe n he s h o we d the lineup to Roge rs, Rog ers identifie d Perez as the per son who had be en in his house. Luria testified, “ Ilaid the photo sprea d down for him, and as soon as he looked at it, he pointed to—to Mr. Perez and said, That’s him.” When asked if Rog ers

seeme d “pre tty

confide nt as to the person he was pickingout,” Luria testified, “ Yes.” Rog e rs a lso pr ov ide d te sti mony a bo ut the lin e up . Whe n a sk e d ho w l on g it t oo k h im to identify

Perez, Roge rs testified, “N ot very long.” When asked if he had to study the lineup bef

ore identifying Perez, Roge rs rec alled, “Probably for, I think, may

be about 30 se conds or a

minute. But Iwon’t for g et his fac e.” When a sked how c onfident he w as th at t h e per son in the lineup was the person he had see n in h i s h o u s e, Roge rs testified, “A bsolutely confide nt.” Rog ers then ide ntified Perez in court as the person who ha d been in his house.

Perez was indicted on se ven coun t s o f burg lary of a ha bitation. Def

ense c ounsel 6 moved for se v e r an c e , an d th e St a te e le c te d

to p r o c e e d

w it h o n ly th e f ir s t c o u n t o f

th e in d ic tment involving the Spivey

home. The jury

found P ere z guilty

of committing that burg lary , and the 7The Tr avis County case s resulted in convic tions that have re cently been a ffirmed by 8 th is Co u rt o na

p p e a l. Se e Pe re

z v . S tat e , No. 03-07-00606- CR, 2009 Tex . App. L EXI S 5689 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin

July 23 , 2 00 9, no pe t. h .) (m e m. o p. , n ot d e sig nate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; Perez v. S tat e , N o . 0 3

- 0 8

- 0 0 1 3 1

- CR , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 5 4 5 7 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n Ju ly 1 6, 2009, no pet. h.) (me m. op., not designated for publication). 8 case proce eded to punishment. The e vidence at the punis hment hear ing inc luded testimony from other alleg ed victims of Perez. At the conclusion of the punishment he aring , Perez was se ntence d to six ty y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal f ollowed.

AN AL YSI S M ot ion in li m ine

Prior to trial, Perez fi l ed a motion in limine to ex clude e vidence of extraneous

o f f e n s e s . T h e s e o f

f e n s e s i n c l u d e d b u r g l ar i e s a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d b y P e r e z i nT r a v i s C o u n t y. At 8 a pre trial hea

ring on the motion, defense counsel e x plained his conc ern a bout the evidenc e: [S ]o me ti me in

Ju ly 2 0 0 6 , [P e r e z] a

p p ar e n tl y b e c a me a

s u s p e c t i ns o me b u r g la

r ies that are be ing

inv e sti g a te d b y

the Au sti n Po lic e De pa

rtme nt. At some poi nt they

had obtained w arr ants for his ar rest. Appa

rently he had be en, they say , i d en t i fi ed in conne ction with some of these othe r burg laries a nd a black SUV. On J uly 28th he was pulled ove r by an Austin patrol offi ce r d ri v ing a black SUV. We learne d that there wer e two outstanding war rants f o r burg lary

from Tr a vis County . H e wa s arr e ste d at th a t ti me , a nd so me pro per

ty wa s f ound in h is vehicle, inc luding a

n item which, ac cordingto t h e repor ts in any event, wa s later i d en t i fi ed b y

[Gavrilov] , one of the victims in t his case, a s having come f rom her house duringthe burg lary back on Ma

y the 10th. Iun de rs tand

the re le va

nc e of that e vid e nc e . I ’m jus t—w hat I ’m c on c e rn e d a bo ut i s then we sta

rt g etting into—unless it’s g oing to be phrase d fairly car efully

. . . is how that e vid e nc e wo uld

c ome in w ith ou t so rt

of —if no t ju st d ir e c tly

statin g , e xtre me ly9

strong ly inferr ing that this defendant wa s also responsible for a wh o l e bunch of oth e r c ri me s w hic h a

re n’ t on tr ia l he re a

nd wh ic h are ir

re le va nt. Th a t’ s—

that’ s my c o n c e r n , f r an k l y. The prose cutor a cknowledg ed def ense c ounsel’s concern and then explained how he w as planning to a dd re ss i t du ri ngtr ia l:

But I was thi nking that if I ask [ the arresting office r], y ou know, y ou wer e aw are of the exist ence of this vehicle a nd a per son tha t wa s d ri ving it, and he ’ll say —y ou know, he’ ll testify

to that and that he watched a tra ffic of fense and that he pulled the g e n tl e ma no v e r , an d

h e v e r if ie d th a t t h e r e w a s ana c ti v e w ar

r an t a n d d o n ’ t a s k any more questions about t hat. J ust say that he took the suspec t, defe ndant, into custody and , u po n a n inve nto ry

of the ve hi cle, w a s a

ble to f ind , amon g a ll o f t

he thi ng s in there , an item that was later c laimed by a victim in Ky le.

. . . . An d I thi nk if I a sk it that w ay , th e patr ol o ff ic e r w ill be a dmi tti ng , “ Ye s, Idid arr e st him because there was a war rant,” but the jury

will not know any

thing a bout what the wa rr ant i s a bo ut, and it wi ll mi nim ize it, be c a us e we have to g ive the jur y so me rea son that this guy

was pulled ove r and a

rre sted.

Th e pr os e c uto r a lso e xpla ine d an oth e r w ay the Tr a vis Cou

nty of fe ns e s c ou ld c ome up duri ngtr ia l:

Then we ’re g oing to ha

ve a photo l i neup, too . . . that Austin put toge ther a nd pr ov id ed to Ky le . A nd

Iwa s g oin g to a sk

the Au sti n d e te c tiv e —o r g e t th e Au sti n de te c tiv e to s ay

he wa s p e rf

or min g an inve sti g a tio n, the defe nd ant wa s a po ssi ble suspect, and the photo lineup that he cr eate d, he provide d to Ky le.

. . . . Th e Ky le PD of fi c e r g oe s out an d sho ws our v ic timthe ph oto lin e up , a nd the vic tim . . . say s, Yea

h, that’s the g uy

in the photo lineup.

. . . .10

So th at’ s real ly

—s o w e ’v e g ot t o s kir

t aro un d th a t w ho le Au sti n is su e , b ut w e sti ll h a v e t o a c kn o w l e d g e w h y h e w a s s t o p p e d an d t h a tt h e r e w a s s o m e s t o l e np r o p e rt y. Ig ue ss w e c ou ld j us t g o w ithsto pp ingfo r t ra ff ic of fe ns e s.

The district cour

t advised the prose cutor, “ You ca n d o all that if y ou’re car eful with the witness. And in my opinion, y ou should do it without any mention of the burg laries. And y ou can sa

y it was a traff

ic s top.
. . .” The prosecutor then asked, “What about t he warra nt? ” The district court re pl i ed, “Why do y ou need to sa

y there ’s a wa

rra nt? ” Af ter fur ther discussion, the district court conc luded, “Don’ t say any thing but ther e wa s a traff

ic stop, a nd we f ound these items.” The district cour

t also addre ssed the conc ern a bout the lineup: [Th e Court ]: Yo u c an s ay the re wa s a

Ha y s li ne up . Y ou

do n’ t ha ve to say ho w i t wa s p ut t og e the r, wh o p ut i t to g e the r. Just s ay that the a uth or iti e s in Kyle or Ha

y s County

had t h e li neup and the y

picked him out. You don’t have to say

it came f rom Austin beca

use he’s suspected in other burg laries. . . . [P rosec utor]: J udg e, the AP—the APD office r is the one that’ s actua lly g oing to say the de fe nd ant i s th e on e in t he ph oto l in eup bec a

us e the Ky

le PD of fi c e r j us t g ot a

n e ma il a nd it s a id, y ou

kn ow , N umb e r 3 , to p r ig ht, is the su sp e c t. [ T h e C o u rt ] : S o M r . R o g e r s w e n tt o T r a v i s C o u n t y? [Pro se c uto r]: To Ky

le . B ut t he Ky le po lic e g ot an e ma il fr om Tr a vis County . So Ky le re a l l y

d o e s n ’ tk

n o w w h o an y

b o dy i s . T h e y j u s tg o tt h e p h o to lineup.

. . . . [T h e Co u rt] : I don’t s e e an y p r o b le m ju s t to s ay th a t th e K y le o f f ic e r h a d a

— had a lineup.11

[De fe ns e ]: I a g re e wi th [the State ]

. . . . At so me po in t so meb od y is g oin g to

have to sa

y that the picture in the lineup that was kicked out by Mr. Rog e rs wa s in

fa c t a pic tur e of

the de fe nd ant. [Th e Court ]: Wel l, y ou can st il l— y ou can sti ll sti pu la te to that if y ou wa nt t o if y ou—I ’m g oing to a llow it one way or anothe r without the other b u r g l ar y. [Defense ]: Yea

h. Iwas kind of guessing that might be the case . [The Court] : Right. So I sug g est y ou work it out among y ourselves. I f y ou can do

it by stipulation—I ’m g oing to a llow it one way or anothe r.

. . . . [P rosec utor]: Iwant [the Austin officer ] t o be able to point t h e d efendant out as

dr ivi ng the ve hic le and the su sp e c t in the ph oto . B ut, Ime an, sh oo t, if [de fe ns e c ouns e l] wi ll s tip ulate to i t, I ’m fi ne wi th t

hat. [De fe ns e ]: I ’l l g ive that so me tho ug ht. [T h e Co u rt] : Y’a ll think about i t. We ’ ll d e c id e

— o r I ’ ll d e c id e in th e mo r

n ing about 15 till 9:00. But Ithink y ou oug h t t o b e ab l e to do it without saying he ’s a suspect any

wher e else. J ust say

there was a

traff ic stop and the of fice r testify , “I ’m with Austin PD, and I perf ormed this, and this i s th e d e f

e n d an t. ” A n d y o u d o n ’ t h a v e to s ay h e ’ s a suspect or any thing. . . . [P rosec utor]: That’s—that’s a g ood point. So we could have the detec tive say , afte r the victim from Kyle came up to Austin and claimed this piece of proper ty , Itook a photo of the g entleman who we caug ht w ith it and sent it to Ky le in a photo lineup. [Th e Court ]: Th a t’ s e a sil y do ne . Y ’a ll d o th a t. [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Is t h a to k ay? [Defense ]: That make s sense. [P rosec utor]: I mean, I ca n ca l l t he detec tive, and y ou can be happy and nothing

a bo ut e xtra

ne ou s o ff e ns e s.12

[Defense ]: Well, I didn’t say I —I was not stipulating t o b ei n g h ap p y about an y t h i n g.

. . . . [ T h e C o u rt ] : R ec es s u n t i l 9 : 0 0 i nt h e m o rn i n g.

T h e r ec o rdd o es n o t re fl ec t an y fu rt h er d i s cu s s i o n o n t h e m o t i o n i n l i m i n e t h e f o l l o wi n g m o rn i n g. I n his first issue, Perez asser ts that the State re peate dly violated the motion in lim ine. Ac c or din g to P erez , th e jury wa s ma de awa

re of the Tr a vis County

of fe ns e s whe n: ( 1) “ the State mentioned the outstanding war rant a nd the ar rest”; ( 2) “the S t at e disclosed that the Austin P olice Depa rtment had pre pare d t h e p h o t o lineup”; and ( 3) “se vera l of the State’s que stions and the of fi c e r’ s r e sp on ses th ereto ma de it c le ar t hat th e Au sti n Po lic e De pa rtme nt h a d n a me d Pe re z as a suspect in other pe nding c ases.” Perez then g oes on to list numerous instanc es throug hout the trial when he asser

ts the S tate viol ated the motion in limi ne, either during argument or in the questions the State aske d of its witnesses and the a nswers that were elicited. I n response , the State ar g ues that Pere z failed to prese rve error . I n the alter native, the State argues that the e x trane ous offe nse evidence was admis sible or, if it was inadmissible, that any

e rr or in i ts a dmi ssi on

wa s h arm le ss. We f irst obse rve that the district c ourt’s ruling on the motion in li mine is unclear from the re c or d. Th e re is no wr itt e n ru lin g on the mot ion , a nd a t no po int

duri ngthe pr e tr ia l he ari ngdid the district court e x pressly g rant the motion. Whil e it seems that the district cou rt agreed that the State should refr ain from mentioning any thing a bout the Travis County war rants or that Perez was

a su sp e c t in

the Tr a vis County

burg lari e s, the e xten t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g re g ard inge xac tly13

wh a t th e State c ou ld m e nti on c on c e rn ingthe APD ’s in vo lv eme nt in c re a tin g the ph oto lin e up is unclea r. In fac t, the district court stated that it would “de cide” the i ssue t he following morning , afte r the par ties “thoug ht about it” some more a nd deter mined if defe nse counse l w ould stipulate to the identity of Pere z in t he lineup. Howe ver, w e do not know what the tr ial court de cided the f ollowing morning , beca

use no fur ther he aringon the motion in li mine is in the recor d. Moreove r, even if Perez is c orre ct that the district c ourt complet el y p ro h ibited the State fr o m m en tioning any thing a bout the Austin Pol ice De partment’s inve stigation, and that the State violated the district cour t’s instructions on t h e m at ter, no e rror has bee n prese rved for r eview. We ha

ve found that, in ea ch i n s t ance Perez mentions in his brief, trial counse l made

no ob je c tio n to the State ’s a lle g e d v iol a tio n o f t he mot ion

in l imi ne. P erez do es not d isp ute thi s. Rather, he expresses his belief that what he char acte rizes as trial counse l’s “g lobal objection” at the pretria l hear ing a

nd the di strict court’s “expli cit instructions” conce rning the motion “would car ry forwa rd throug h trial without the need f or any contempora

neous objec tion.” We disag ree . I t is well s ettled t hat m otions in limine do not preser ve er ror. Se e Ro be rts v . S

tat e , 22 0 S.W. 3d

52 1, 53 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 98 S.W.3 d 1 89 , 1 93 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); R o m o v . Stat e , 577 S.W .2d 251, 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). This is true whether the motion is gra

nted or de nied. W

ill is v . S tat e , 7 8 5 S .W.2d 378, 384 (Tex. C rim. App. 1989); Ha rn e tt v . S

tat e , 38 S.W .3d 650, 655 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). “A ruling on a motion in limi ne does not purpor

t to be one on the merits but one reg arding the administration of the trial.” Ha rn e tt , 38 S.W .3d at 655. As the c ourt of cr iminal appeals ha s expl ained,14

Th e viol ation of a motion in limi ne may entitle a par

ty to relief, but a

ny reme dies available with reg ard to such a viol ation are with the trial cour t. I f its order ha s been vio la te d, the tr ia l c ourt

may a pp ly the sanc tio ns of

c on te mpt or take oth e r a

pp ro pr ia te action. B ut for erro r t o b e p re serve d on appea l with reg ard to the a dmission of ina dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e ob

je c tio n th e re to s ho uld

be ma de a t th e tim e the e vid e nc e is offe red.

Braz ze ll v . S tat e , 481 S.W .2d 130, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Thus, “‘[f]or err or to be pre serve d with reg ard to the s ubject matter of [a] m otion in li mine, it is absolutely nece ssary

that an objec tion be made at the time when the subject is raised during the trial.’” W ilk e rso n v . S tat e , 881 S.W .2d 321, 3 2 6 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Go nz ale s v . S tat e , 685 S.W .2d 47, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)); see also Tex. R. Evi d. 103(a) (1) ( requiring party to timely

object whe n evidenc e is admitted); Tex. R

. Ap p . P

. 3 3

. 1 (a )( 1 )( A) (r eq u i ri n g t i m el y an d s p ec i fi c o b

j ec t i o ns t at i n g gro u n d s wi t h s u ff i ci ent clar ity to advise trial cour

t of basis for c omplaint). There are only

two exceptions to the contemporane ous-objection re quirement, a nd neither is applica

ble her e. F irst, a party may obtain a “r unning obje ction” to the evide nce. Se e Fo rd

v . S tat e , 91 9 S.W. 2d 10 7, 11 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Et hin gto n v . S

tat e , 819 S.W .2d 854, 858-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Howeve r, the re cord doe s n ot refle ct that Pere z ever made or obtained a runningobjection to the admission of the evide nce of which he now

com p l ains. The se cond exception is provide d by rule 103: “When the court hear s objections to of fer ed evidenc e out of

the prese nce of

the jury and r u l es t hat such ev idencebe admitted , s uc h o bje c tio ns sh a ll b e de e me d to

a pp ly to s uc h e vid e nc e wh e n it is a dmi tte d b e fo re the jur y wi tho ut the ne c e ssi ty

of re pe a tin g tho se ob je c tio ns .” Te x. R. Ev id. 10 3( a )( 1) (e mph a sis a dd e d) . Pe re z cl a ims that th is e xce pti on a pp lie s to him because he objec ted to the evidence in a hearing outside the prese nce of the jury and obtained15

a ruling from the district cour t. Ho we v er, r

ule 103(a )(1) contemplates a situation in which a tr ia l c ourt ha s overruled

a par ty ’s objection at the he aringand admitted the complained- of evide nce, i.e., when a

party obtains an adve rse r

uling on a motion to exclude or suppre ss evidence

. See, e .g. , Geude r v . S

tat e , 1 15 S.W. 3d

11 , 1 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Lop e z v . S tat e , 2 3 0 S. W.3d 875, 883 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007), aff’d , 253 S.W .3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Here , the re cord ref lects that the district court, if any thing, r uled in Perez’s favor and exc luded evidenc e re lated to the Travis County

offe nses. Thus, the exception provided by rule 103 doe s not apply

in this case. We conclude that Perez has pre sented nothing for r eview.

Ineff ect ive assistance Also in his first iss ue, Pere z arg ues in the alternative that, if we f ind that trial counsel fa ile d to pr e se rv e e rr or

re g ard ingthe a dmi ssi on of the e xtra ne ou s- offens e evi den c e , w e sh ou ld

c on c lud e that th is f

a ilure c on sti tut e d in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. We evaluate claims of inef fec tive assistance of counse l ag ainst the standard set forth in Strickland v. W

ashington

. See 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7 ( 19 84 ); He rn an de z v . S tat e , 988 S.W .2d 770, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n decidinga cla im of ineffe ctive assis t ance of c ounsel, we must determine whe ther a n attorney ’s per formanc e was deficie nt and, if so, whethe r that def iciency prejudice d the def

ense. S tr ickland , 46 6 U.S. a t 68 7; Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 )

. T h e a p p e l l an th a s t h e b u r d e nt o e s t ab l i s h b o t h o f t h e s e p r o n g s b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Se e J ac k so n v . S tat e , 973 S.W .2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Absent both showing s, we c annot conc lude t h at t h er e has been a brea kdown in the adve rsar ial proce ss that rende rs the re sult of a trial unre liable. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813.16 Def icient per formanc e is prejudicia l w hen there is a rea sonable proba bility that the

ou tc ome of the pr oc e e din g wo uld have be e n d if

fe re nt b ut f

or the a tto rn e y ’s un

pr of e ssi on a l c on du c t. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 2. A r e a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity is a pr ob a bil ity sufficie nt to undermine conf idence that the adve rsar ial proce ss can be relied upon to ha ve produc ed a just result. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. On this rec ord, eve n if we

wer e to assume that tria l counsel’ s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt, we ca nnot conclude that Perez has

me t hi s b ur de n o f p ro vin g by a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that the re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that the outcome of

the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent but for the def icient per formanc e. Th e e vid e nc e in t

his c a se inc lud e d id e nti fi c a tio n te sti mony fro m an e y e wi tne ss who saw a

nd spoke wit h t h e allege d burg lar a round the time the c rime occ urre d. J ohn Roge rs testified that a man c ame to his house on the day of the burg lary , rang the doorbell, and whe n no one

ans we re d, wa lke d to wa

rd Spi ve y ’s ho us e . Sh or

tly the re a ft e r, Rog e rs dis c ov e re d th a t sa me man in his kit c he n. Rog e rs wa s a ble to d e sc ri be the man’ s ph y sic a l fe a tur e s, inc lud ing that he wa s “ a sma ll person,” shorter tha

n Roge rs, “in [t he] rang e” of five-f oot-nine to five- foot-ten inche s tall, and was

w e ar i n g d ar

k c l o t h i n g , h a d

d ar k h a i r , an d h a d “ a l m o s tl i k e anI t a l i ans k i nt o n e , l i k e ano l i v e sk in ton e. ” R o gers’s description of the ma n did not fit P ere z’s description exactly —the jury

hear d evidenc e that R o ger s d i d n o t believe Per ez to be Hispanic, e ven thoug h he wa s; that Perez was possibly closer to f

ive-foot- six or -se ven inche s tall; and that Roge rs did not observe that the p e r s o ni nh i s h o u s e h a d

an y m o l e s o nh i s f

a c e , e v e nt h o u g h P e r e z , a tt h e t i m e o f t h e b u r g l a r

y,We note that the State introduce d evidenc e that Pere z had this m ole re moved at some point 9 afte r he w as ar

rested. 17 appar ently

had a mole on his lef

t chee k. Howeve r, R og ers testified that he was “ca lm” during the

9

e nc ounte r, wa s “ may

be se ve n to e ig ht f

e e t” awa y fr om t he man w hil e the y

we re sp e a kin g , a

nd wo uld not “forg et his fac e.” F urthermor e, Rog ers testified that he had to study the lineup for only “about 30 seconds or

a minute” be fore identifyin g Perez and that he was “ absolutely confide nt” that the person he identified in the lineup wa s the same pe rson he sa w i n h i s h ouse. De tective L uria, the office r who c onducted the lineup, testified simil arly about Rog ers’ s confidenc e in making the identification. Additionally , Roge rs saw the person dr ive awa y in a black SUV that Roge rs testified looked similar to the SUV t h at Perez was dr iving whe n he wa s arr ested. Rog ers testified that he

reme mbere d the chr ome whee ls and the blac k whee l-well cove rs on the vehic le.

Mo re ov e r, pr op e rt

y that w a s all e g e dly

sto le n f ro m Sp ive y ’s ho us e wa s f ound in P e r e z ’ s S U V

. T h e j u r

y h e ar d e v i d e n c e t h a tt h i s p r o p e rt y, w h i c h w a s d e s c r i b e d a s “ a D a l l a s C o w b o ys commemorat i v e ri n g, fa i rl y larg e,” w as “ve ry

unique.” I t was not the ty pe of r ing w orn on one’ s fing er but used a s a paperwe ight. Office r F einar tz t estified, “I ’ve w orked bur g lary investigations for fi ve y e ars wh ile Iwa s a det e c tiv e , an d I ’v e ne ve r s e e n a ri nglik e tha

t.” Al tho ug h, a s Pe re z ob se rv e s, the ring did not have any “identifying marks” on it suc h as a ser ial number, whe n Gavr ilov claimed the ri ng , F e ina

rt z te sti fi e d th a t G a vr ilo v “ po sit ive ly ide nti fi e d th a t r ing ” a s h e rs . I n summary , this is not a case in which we can conclude that trial counsel’s f ailure t o o b j ec t t o extraneous offe nse evide nce unde rmines our c onfidenc e in the outcome of the proce eding

. Thus, we cannot conclude t hat P ere z has satis fied the second prong of Strickland

. See,The rec ord ref lects that the State withdrew this offe r duringthe punishment hear ing a fter 10 Perez indicated that he had r ece ived contra dictory advice about the sente nce. 18 e.g. , Ha tho rn v . S

tat e , 8 4 8 S

. W

. 2 d

1 0 1 , 1 2 0 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( co n cl u d i n g t h at , ev en t h o u gh trial counsel f

ailed to object to admission of extraneous off enses, a ppellant “ha s simply

not met the h e a v y b u r d e nr e qu i r e d

b y Strickland

” whe n court c onsidered, a mong othe r thing s, “the stre ng th of the State ’s c a se ” ); In gh am v . S tat e , 679 S.W .2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (af ter “ viewing the evidenc e as a

whole,” f inding that “ the pre

judicial impact” of admission of extraneous off enses “ was not of a suff

icient deg ree to constitute an unfair trial”). We overrule Perez’s first issue. I n his second issue, Pere z claims that he rec eived inef fec tive assistance when the attorney repr esenting Perez in his appeal of the Travis County

burg lary case s p rovided a dvice reg ardingpunishment that contra dicted the advice of P ere z’s trial counsel in this case . Acc ording to Perez, trial counsel in t his case a dvised him that the district court had the a uthority to run his Hay s County

s e n te n c e c o n s e c u ti v e to h is T r a v is Co u n ty s e n te n c e s . A p p e ll a te c o u n s e l i nthe Travis County

case s, howeve r, alleg edly advised P er ez that the district court did not have the authority to sta ck the sentenc es while the appe als in the Travis County case s were pending . Perez

a s s e rt s t h a tt h i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y a d v i c e p r e v e n t e d h i m f

r o m a c c e p t i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a o f f e r o f t h i rt yfi ve y e ars to r

un c on c ur re ntl y wi th h is s e nte nc e s in

the Tr a vis County

c a se s. 10 Any alleg ation of ineff

ectivene ss must be firmly

founded in the r ecor d, and the r ecor d must affirmatively

demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Sa lin as v . S

tat e , 163 S.W .3d 734, 740 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813). He nce, in most ineff ective a ssistance19

c la ims , a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s is e sse nti a l t o g a the ri ngthe fa c ts n e c e ssa ry to a de qu a te ly

e va luate such cla ims. Ex parte Torres , 9 4 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 5 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 )

. T h e r e c or d in thi s

c a se is i na de qu a te to de te rm ine the e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f t

he a pp e llate c ouns e l w ho a dv ise d Pe re z in the Tr a vis County

c a se s. F ur

the rm or e , “ c ouns e l sh ou ld o rd ina rily be affo rd e d a

n o pp or tun ity to explain his actions bef

ore be ing de nounced a s ineffe ctive.” Go od sp e e d v . S

tat e , 187 S.W .3d 390, 3 9 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (c i t i n g Ry lan de r v . S tat e , 101 S.W .3d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 0 0 3 ) )

. P e r e z ’ s T r a v i s C o u n t y a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l h a s n o tb e e na f f o r d e d t h a to p p o rtu n i t y. We overrule Perez’s sec ond issue.

CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 21, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh