i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 59 9- CR Juan Manu e l VILLANUEVA , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 63rd Judi cial District Court, Val Ve rde County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 99 75 -C R Honora ble Thomas F. L ee, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 6, 2008 AFF I RMED AS MODI FI ED J uan Manue l Villanueva pled nolo contendere to a char g e of a g g ravated sexual assault of a
c hil d. Th e tr ia l ju dg e a c c e pte d Vi lla nu e va ’s ple a and se nte nc e d him to thi rt e e n y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Villanueva c ontends the t rial court err ed by acc epting his plea and f ailing to g rant a

new tria l when the evidenc e was insufficient to suppor t his c onviction, evidence was introduce d that cast doubt on his guilt, and his trial counse l provided ineff ective a ssistance. Villanue va also c ontends the trial04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 2- court e rre d by

failing to admonish him t hat he must reg ister as a sexua l o ff

en d er . W e af

firm the judgme nt of the trial cour t as modified. B ACKG ROUND V il la n u e v a , a n e le me n ta

r y s c h o o l c o a c h , an d h is w if e lo o k e d a f

te r c h il dr e n in th e ir home. Villanueva of

ten took the childre n to the movies and would attend “pe e-w ee” sports events to watc h the childre n play
. On e day , Villanueva c alled seve n-y ear old A.V.’s mother at work to ask if he could take A .V. to the movies with some other children. A.V.’s mother said A.V. c ould go if

she
wa nte d to bu t w a s su

rp ri se d to he ar V ill anu e va state that A. V. wa s c ry

ing be c a us e sh e wa s a fr a id t o ask. When A.V. c ame home f rom the movies, she we nt to her fathe r cr y ing. When A.V .’s father asked w hat was w rong , A.V. told him Villanueva had rubbed her vag ina with his hand while they
wer e alone at the movies. When a sked if Villanueva had put any

thing in her

vag ina, A.V. a

nswere d Villanueva had us ed his hand and sometimes it would hurt her. A.V.’ s father repor ted the incident to t he po lic e wh o too k A. V. to be e xami ne d by a SAN E nurs e , wh o is a se xua l a ssa ult sp e c ia lis t, i n San Antonio. The SANE nurse repor ted A.V.’ s vag ina had a g ener al redne ss but no tra uma. The S A N E n u r s e a l s o r e p o rt e d t h e c o n t a c ta tt h e m o v i e s w a s o v e r A
. V
. ’ s c l o t h i n g . S u

b s e qu e n t l y, Villanueva w as questioned by the police a

nd g ave a statement admitting that he h ad t o u ched the vag inas of A.V. a

nd another

g irl. He also stated t hat as to A.V. “I may have pe netrated slightly

not deep.” Villanueva w as indicted for ag g ravated s exual assault of a child and indecency with a child. The State withdrew the indece ncy char g e, and V illanueva pled nolo contendere in an op e n ple a to the ag g ravated sexual assault char g e. After admonishing V illanueva a bout his rights and his wa iver of the m, t he tr ia l c ourt

a c c e pte d th e ple a and the sti pu la te d ev ide nc e , an d s e nte nc e d V ill anu e va to thirteen y ear s in prison.04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 3- S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discre tion. Le wis
v . S tat e , 911 S.W .2d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). An abuse of discretion occ urs when the trial cour t acts a rbitrar ily or unre asonably , wi thout refe renc e to g uiding r ules or princ iples. Montgomery v. Sta te , 810 S.W .2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). When consideringa motion for new trial, the trial court a ssesses the c redibility of the witnesse s and may acc ept or re

j ec t any or all of the testimony g iven by a witness. Ho

y os v . S tat e , 9 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x. A p p .— Ho us ton [14t h Dist.] 1997), aff’d , 9 82 S.W. 2d 41 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). Ac c or din g ly , we may no t su bs tit ute our judg ment for that of

the trial cour

t. Id. F AI L URE T O G RANT A N E W T RI AL Villanueva c ont en d s t h e t rial cour t abused its discretion by failing to gr ant a ne w trial beca use: (1) the evidenc e presented to the trial cour t was insufficie nt to support Villanueva’s plea of nolo contendere or his c onviction f or ag g ravated sexual assault; (2) the e vidence prese nted during the proc eeding s cast doubt on Villanueva’ s g uilt; and (3) Villanue va re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of tr ia l c ouns e l. I. When a defe ndant is c onvicted following a voluntary plea of nolo contendere to t he c ourt , we r eview the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e under a “suf ficient e vidence ” standa

rd. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 1 .1 5 ( Ve rn on 20 05 ); Sto ne v . S

tat e , 919 S.W .2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A plea of no lo c on te nd

e re o r n o co n t es t h as the same eff ect a s a g uilty

plea vís-a -vís the cr iminal prosec ution of a def

endant. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 2 7. 02 (5 ) ( Ve rn on 20 06 ); Brewster

v . S tat e , 606 S.W .2d 325, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). A plea of g uilty befor e the court in a f elony04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 4- case constitutes an admissi o n o f gu ilt but does not authoriz e a c onviction. Coo pe r v . S tat e , 537 S.W .2d 940, 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The State is re quired to introduce supporting e vidence
e sta bli sh ingthe de fe nd ant’ s g uil t, a nd the n th e tr ia l c ourt

mus t c on sid e r t

he e vid e nc e and

a c c e pt i t as th e basis for

its judgment. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 1.15 (V ernon 2005) . Supporting
e v i d e n c e m ay b e o f

f e r e d t h r o u g h a w r i t t e ns t i p u l a t i o nb y t h e d e f e n d an tw h e na c c o mp an i e d b y a written conse nt and waive r and suppor ted by af fi d av i t s , written statements of w itnesses, or other documentar

y evidenc e. Va lde

z v . S tat e , 5 5 5 S
. W
. 2 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 4 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 7 ). Al t h o u gh a def endant plea ding no c ontest is not require d to admit the t ruth of t he stipulated evide nce, doing
so makes the stipulation a judicial confession. Stone , 9 1 9 S
. W
. 2 d at 4 2 6 (c i t i n g W

aage v . S tat e , 456 S.W .2d 388, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). At the ple a he ari ng , Vi lla

nu e va wa s a dmo nis he d b y the c ourt and e nte re d a ple a of no c on te st. Vi l l an u ev a s t at edi no p en co u rt t h at h e u n d er s t o o d t h at , fo r t h e p u rp o s es o f t h e c ri m i n al p ro ce ed i n g,
a no co n te s t p le a h a s th e s a me e f f e c t a s a g u il ty p le a . V il la n u e v a te s ti f

ie d th a t h e f

r e ely and
vo lun tari ly

e nte re d th e ple a

and that no on e ha d thr e a te ne d him or pr omi se d him any thi ng to c a

us e hi m t o plead no c ontest. The trial judg e then c onsidered the State’s evidenc e in support of Villanueva’ s g uilt: (1) Villanueva’ s stipulated testimony and wa ivers; (2) V illanueva’ s waiver of rig hts prio r t o his oral and wr itten statement; (3) Villanue va’s ha ndwritten statement; (4) a ty ped transcr ipt of Villanueva’ s statement; (5) the poli ce i ncident re port including the outcry witness’s statement and me dical re port; and (6) the pol ice interview wit h A.V. The S tate’s evidence included:
a sig ne d w ri tte n w a ive r o f V ill anu e va ’s ri g ht t o a jur y tr ia l; a sig ne d a g re e me nt t o s tip ulate to testimony that would be the s am e as t h e witnesses would g ive if they wer e pre sent in open cour t includ in g a

w a iv e r o f V il la n u e v a ’ s c o n f

r o n tati o nr ig h ts ; a

n d a s ig n e d s ti p u lati o no f

h is own04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 5- testimony stating the fac ts t h er ei n wer e true and cor rec t. Be cause Villanueva stipulated his own te sti mony , w hic h “ e mbr a c e [d] e ve ry e sse nti a l e le me nt o f t

he of fe ns e ” of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hild sufficient to establish his g uilt, and st ipulated that the fa cts wer e true and cor rec t, he made a judicial confession as a matter of law, despite the fact he modi fied the stipul ation form by crossing out the words “judicia lly

confe ss.” Se e W

rig ht v . S tat e , 930 S.W .2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (indicating the S t at e’s evidence must “embrac e[] ever y essential ele ment of the of fe ns e c ha rg e d” wh e n a

de fe nd ant p le a ds no c on te st) ; see also Stone , 919 S.W .2d at 426. Vi lla nu e v a ’ s j u d i c i a l c o n f e s s i o n m e e t s t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f art i c l e 1
. 1 5 an d a l o n e i s s u f f i c i e n tto support Villanueva’ s plea of no contest and the trial cour t’s finding of g uilt. See W right , 930 S.W .2d
a t 13 3; se e als o Din ne ry v . S tat e , 592 S.W .2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on motion for reh’ g ). B eca

use the e vidence is sufficient t o s u p p o rt Villanueva ’s plea a nd his conviction for ag g ravated sexual assault, the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial on this gr ound. II. To e sta bli shan a

bu se of di scr eti on for de nyinga mot ion fo r n e w tri a l ba se d o n n e wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e , th e a pp e lla nt m us t show : (1) the e vid e nc e wa s unk no wn or un a va ila ble to h im befor e trial; (2) his failure to discove r the e vidence was not due to a lack of diligenc e; (3) the new evidenc e is admissible and not mere ly cumulative, cor

roborative, collater al, or im peac hing; a nd (4) the ne w evi den ce is p ro ba bly tr ue and its ma te ri a lity

wi ll p ro ba

bly re su lt i n a

dif fe re nt o utc ome following a new

trial. Ke e te r v . S

tat e , 74 S.W. 3d 31 , 3 6- 37 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Sh afe r v . S tat e , 82 S.W. 3d

55 3, 55 6 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io 20 02 , pe t. re f’ d) . I f t he a pp e lla nt f a ils to e sta

bli sh04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 6- any one of these elements, the trial cour t does not abuse its discre tion by denying the motion for new trial. Shafer , 82 S.W .3d at 556. Ha vin g pr e vio us ly

de te rm ine d th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s su ff ic ie nt and Vi lla nu e va did jud ic ia lly confe ss, we eva luate whe ther Vill anueva met the four r equire ments for ne wly discovere d evidenc e. No witnesses we re c alled to testify at t he plea hear ing or the sentenc ing he aring . At the sentenc ing hear ing, V illanueva indicated for the first time that his statement to the police was fa lse. Villanueva did no t te sti fy

a t th e he ari ngon

the mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l but su

bmi tte d a n a ff ida vit statin g that “ my attorney informed me that the only way that Iwould g et probat i o n [ wa s ] if Ipled ‘no c ontest.’” Villanueva’ s aff

idavit did not mention any exculpatory witnesses or other ne w evidenc e; howeve r,
a nie c e , tw o d a

ug hte rs , a nd a c los e pe rs on a l fr ie nd te sti fi e d at th e he ari ngon the mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. Yanita Esc are no, Villanueva’ s niece , testified that she a nd her sister- in-law saw

Villanueva at the movie with A.V., that he sat on the row in front of her, that he som etimes leane d awa y from A. V. and a

pp e are d to be sle e pin g , an d tha t she wa s watc hin g the mov ie and no t hi s h and s. Ya

nit a also testified that, althoug h the theat er wa s dark a nd the theate r cha irs wer e made of an opa que materia l, she would have known if Vil l an u ev a had improperly touched A.V . Yanita testified that she t ried to talk to Villanueva ’s trial counse l on the day of the plea

hear ing to tell him that she and her sister- in-law we re e y ewitnesses, but Villanue va’s c ounsel did not talk to her. Vi lla nu e va ’s da

ug hte rs , Sove ida and Ye se nia , who we re no t witn e sse s but h e ard tha t Y a nit a
wa s a t t h e m o v i e s o n t h e d ay o f t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y a l s o t r i e d t o t a lk t o Vi lla nu e va ’s tr ia l c ouns e l be fo re tr ia l and a t th e ple a

he ari ng to te ll him that th e re we re e y e wi tne sse s. Ya nit a te sti fi e d that Vi lla

nu e va kn e w sh e and he r sis te r- in- law wo uld te sti fy on Vi lla nu e va ’s be ha lf befor e the plea

hear ing. V illanueva would have known, ther efor e, that the y could have provided04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 7- exculpatory

testimony

at the time of the pl ea hear ing. I n addition, he would have known his own t e s t i m o n y w o u l d

h a v e c a s td o u

b to nh i s g u i l ta tt h e t i m e o f t h e p l e a h e ar i n g . C o n s e qu e n t l y, Villanueva’ s evidenc e fa ils the f irst pr ong of the test. Moreove r, the e y ewitnesses w ere prese nt at the plea he aringy et Villanueva did not mention any thing to the j udg e about being innocent or ha ving witnesses at the ple a hear ing who could prove his innoc ence . I n fac t, Villanueva stipulated to the evidenc e and judicia lly

confe ssed t hat he did “intentionally and knowingly sexually assault A.V. by causing[hi s] finger

to penetrate the fe male sexual org an o f A. V. ” I t is within t he trial c ourt’s discretion to believe or disbeli ev e the ne w evidenc e and V illanueva’ s rec antation. Keeter , 74 S.W. 3d a t 37 ; Hoyos , 951 S.W .2d at 511. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion, there fore , by denying the motion for new tria l based on the g round of ne wly discovere d evidenc e. III . I n ad dit io nt o h i s m o t i o nf o r n e w t r i a l o ng r o u n d s o f i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e an d

n e wl y discovere d evidenc e, Villanueva also claims the trial judge erre d by failing to gr ant him a new tr ial on g rounds of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l. The standar d of re view for evaluating claims of ineffe ctive assistance of trial counse l is set forth in Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 692 (1984). To pr ove inef fec tive assist an ce of

counsel on a

ppeal, a n appellant must show: (1) counsel’s assistance f

ell below an obje ctive prof essional standar d; and (2) c ounsel’s ac tions thereby prejudice d appellant’ s defe nse. Id. ; Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Ap pe lla nt m us t pr ov e , b y

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that, b ut f

or c ouns e l’ s e rr or , th e re is a
rea sonable proba

bility the outcome of

his trial w o uld have be en diffe rent. J ac k so n v . S tat e , 973 S.W. 2d 95 4, 95 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). A “ re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity” is a

“ pr ob a bil ity su ff ic ie nt t o undermi n e co n fidenc e in the outcome.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694. I n revie wing an inef fec tive04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 8- assistance of counse l claim, we c onsider the totality of counse l’s repr esentation in li g ht of the particula r circ umstances of the c ase a nd presume that counsel ac ted compete ntly and made decisions based on a

rea sonable trial strateg y . Se e Ex pa rteW e lbo rn , 785 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). To re but this presumption, t he basis for any all ega t i o n o f i neff

ectivene ss must be aff irmatively

founded in the r ecor d. Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 3. Ev e n if th e a

pp e lla nt i s a ble to prove tria l counsel’s pe rfor mance was de ficient, the a ppellant must also a ffirmatively prove that he was pre judiced by

counsel’s a ctions. Id. a t 81 2. Th e a pp e lla nt m us t de mon strate a

re a so na ble probabi li ty

th a t t h e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld

h a v e b e e nd if

f e r e n t i f tr ia l c o u n s e l h a d

a c ted profe ssionally
. Id. Whe re a “ mot ion fo r n e w tri a l a lle g e s ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, we mus t deter mine whether

the trial cour

t’s deter m i n ati on of the inef

fec tive assistance claim and de nial of the motion for new tr ial wer e cl ea rl y wrongand outside the zone of r easona ble disag ree ment.” Sa nc he z v . S tat e , 243 S.W .3d 57, 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2007, pet. re f’d)
. A. P rom ise of Com m uni ty Sup ervision Villanueva a

rg ues his trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive for telling Villanue va he w ould rec eive community

supervision if he pled no c ontest. Villanueva’ s aff idavit, attache d to his mot ion for new trial, states “my attorney informed me that the only way that Iwould g et probation [ was] if Ipled ‘no
c on test ’ to th e charg e s. He a lso tol d me that if Iwe nt t o tr ia l and

los t th e c a se , th a t I

wo uld g o to prison.” The testimony of Villanueva’ s daug hters at the hear ing on the motion for new tria l and the aff idavits provided by

them and Ar lene Rey

na, also attached to the m o t i o n fo r n ew tria l, support Villanueva’ s claim t hat t rial counsel told Villanueva he would rec eive community supervision if he pled no contest.04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

7 5 7 S.W
. 2 d 82 0 (T ex. A p p . — H o ust o n [1st D i st
. ] 19 8 8 , pe t
. ref ’ d ). 1

- 9- I n this case, we can a scer

tain whether

Villanueva’ s plea was voluntary or i nvoluntary from the re cord. Se e He rn an de z v . S tat e , 84 S.W .3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. re f’d) . At the plea hear ing, Villanueva stated in ope n court, and in documents submitted to the court, that he stipulated to the elements of the offe nse for which he w as cha

rg ed, that he was awa

re that the leg al eff ect of his plea wa s the s am e as t h at o f a g uilty plea, that it was a

n open plea

without an ag ree d
rec ommendation as to punishment, and that the trial c o u rt co u l d consider the full rang e of punishment authorized by law. Villanueva further acknow ledg ed that his plea of no c ontest was not the re sult of t hreats, violence, or promises, and that he was “totally satisfied” with his t rial counse l’s repr esentation. “An attestation of voluntariness at the pl ea hear ing c reates a he avy burden f or the a ppellant to show involuntariness at a subseque nt hear ing.” Id. I n Me sse r v . S tat e , Mess er ’s t ri al counsel 1

err oneously

advised Messe r he would rec eive community supervision if he pled no contest. Messer enter ed an open plea of no contest t estifying he was enteringthe plea voluntar ily , he under stood the
ra ng e of po ssi ble punis hme nt, and no on e ha d “ fo rc e d, thr e a te ne d, or c oe rc e d” him

re ga rd inghis plea. At the he aringon his moti on for ne w t rial, Messer testified he pled no contest bec ause his trial counsel a dvised h i m h e would get c ommunity supervision. Even thoug h Messer’ s trial counsel admitted her mistake, the court of a ppeals he ld: The stateme nts made to appe ll an t b y his defense counsel a bout the punishment he might e x pect if he pleade d n o co n t est simply constituted counsel’s pr edictions, albeit er roneous ones, about the log ical outcome of cer tain trial strateg y . I n view of the clea r admonit ions g iven by

the trial cour

t befor e the plea , which bo t h t h e appellant and his counsel admit they understood, appe llant cannot credibly contend that his plea was involuntary and that he wa s d e nie d e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l.04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 10- Me sse r v . S tat e , 75 7 S
. W
. 2 d 820, 826 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1988, pet. re f’d) (citing W ellnitz v. Page , 420 F.2d 935 ( 10th Cir.1970)). I n the i nstant case , Villanueva does not contend he failed to understand the admonitions he
wa s giv en. Vi lla

nu e va ’s tr ia l c ouns e l, J.B . Wil liamso n, de nie d te lli ngVi lla nu e va tha t he wo uld definitely rec eive c ommunity

supervision if he pled no contest. At the hea ring on the motion for new tr ia l, Wi lli a mso n, te sti fi e d th a t:

Itol d [V ill anu e va ] Itho ug ht t hat s in ce [ hi s] c on fe ssi on s w e re c omi ngin about the numer ous molestations of the littl e g irls, that the re was a ver y g ood chanc e that a jury

would find him guilty

and a hig h sentenc e [(30 to 40 y e ars )] w ou ld b e e xtre me ly po ssi ble
. He did n’ t want to g o to pr iso n. Itol d him I understood, and the only way that Ifelt in my

opinion there would be so me c on sid e ratio n f

or so me thi ngoth e r t

han pr iso n ti me wo uld

be to g o to the c ou rt on a ple a of no c on te st and ho pe tha t th e jud g e wo uld

c on sid e r [i t] a s f ar a s a dju dic a tio n. [I ] [m ]ad e it qu ite c le ar that I did n’ t kn ow wh a t w ou ld happen, just like he didn’t know, but I felt l ike that was the only way that he would g et a c onsideration of somethingother than a prison sentenc e. Wil liamson further testified that he ex plained to Vil lanueva that the offe nse wa s a “3( g ) off ense,”
me anin g on ly

a jur y c ou ld c on sid e r r e g ula

r c o mm u n ity su pe rv isi on and the jud g e c ou ld c on sid e r o nly defe rre d adjudication community supervision or prison. Villanueva told W illiamson “ h e d id

n ’ t w ant to go thr oug h a jury

trial. He didn’t want to put his f amily throug h a jury

trial.” Af

ter a one and a half hour me eting with Villanueva a nd his family , Villanueva told Williamson “he was g oing to put it i n G od ’s ha

nd s, and he wa nte d to do the no c on te st p le a be fo re the jud g e .” Whe n a sk e d d ir e c tly if he ha d ever

told Villanueva “that if he ente red a ny kind of plea that he would re ceive probation,” Wil liamson answer ed “[a]bsolutely not.” Even if w e ac cept a s true Villanueva ’s evidenc e re g arding Wil liamson’s as s u rances, “suc h assura nces, a lbeit errone ous, cannot ove rcome the admissions [Vil lanueva ] m ade in ope n court that his plea w as voluntary , with full kn o wl ed ge of the court’s04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 11- sentenc ing options.” See H ernandez , 84 S.W.3 d at 34. F ur the rm or e , Williamso n g a ve a re a so na ble explanation reg ardinghis trial strateg y for recommending a plea

of no conte st, and a re viewing court presumes that counsel ac ted compete ntly and made decisions consist ent wit h such a strateg y . See Ex pa rteW e lbo rn , 785 S.W .2d at 393. B eca use the tr i al j u d ge as sesses the c redibility of the witnesses and ma

y acc ept or re

ject any or all of the te stimony

g iven by a witness, Hoyos , 951 S.W .2d at 511, we c annot say

that the trial cour

t’s reje ction of the inef

fec tive assistance claim base d on a pr omi se of com mun ity

su pe rv isi on wa s c le arl y

wr on g and

ou tsi de the zon e of

re a so na ble disag ree ment. See Sanc hez , 243 S.W .3d at 63. B. F ailure to Call Exculpatory Witnesses Villanueva c laims his trial counsel was de ficient for failing to call witnesses who w ould have g iven exculpatory

evidenc e on Villanueva ’s beha lf. As discu s s ed above, Y anita testified that she and her sister-in-lawsat behind Villanueva and A.V. at the m o v i es on the da y of the a ssault. She testified that she tried to tell Willi amson there wer e ey ewitnesses on the day of the plea

hear ing, but Willi a mso n d id n ot t a lk t o h e r. Ya nit a test if ied that sh e a lso tol d V ill anu e va and se ve ra l f a mil y members that ther e we re e y ewitnesses, inc luding Soveida, a nd Yese nia. Soveida t estified she tried t o call W illiamson sever al t imes over the course of the thre e y ear s le a din g up to t

he tr ia l and

le ft me ssa g e s w itha

se c re tary , bu t W il liams on did no t r e tur n th e c a lls
. Sov e ida ad mi tt ed she did no t tr y to t a ke Willi a mso n a sid e e ve n th ou g h s he wa s p re se nt a t so me meeting s Wi lliamson had with V illanueva, beca use Wil liamson ne ver g ave he r a c hance or he w as alway s in a hurry
. Ye se nia te sti fi e d s he c a lle d Wil liamso n s e ve ra l ti me s a bo ut t he e y e wi tne sse s and

did no t ta lk to a sec reta

ry beca use she a lway s g ot an answeringmachine. Y esenia did not leave a

ny messag es04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 12- bu t te sti fi e d s he tol d Wil liamso n a bo ut t he e y e wi tne sse s b e fo re the tr ia l, a nd Sov e ida he ard he r t e ll Wil liamson. V illanueva, howeve r, never mentioned that there wer e ey ewitnesses to Willi amson or to the trial court at either the ple a hea ring or the sente ncing hear ing. Although defense counsel ha s a duty t o p repa

re a defe nse by

independe ntly

investigating the f

acts of the case as we ll as the pertinent law , Bu tle r v . S

tat e , 7 16 S.W. 2d

48 , 5 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ): [t]he re a so na

ble ne ss o f c ouns e l’ s a c tio ns may be de te rm ine d o r s ub sta

nti a lly influence d by

the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly , on informed strateg ic choice s made by the defe ndant and on information supplied by the defe ndant. I n particula r, what investiga ti o nd ec i s i o n s ar e r ea s o n ab l e d ep en d s cr i t i ca l l y o ns u ch i n fo rm ati on. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 1. Du e to t he fa c t V ill anu e va

di d no t men tio n a

ny e y e wi tne sse s to Willi a mso n o r t o th e tr ia l c ourt , a lth ou g h h e ha d th e kn owl edg e and the op po rt

un ity , a nd be c a us e the re wa s c on fl ic tin g e vid e nc e re g ard ingwh e the r o r n ot Wi lli a mso n h a d a n o pp or tun ity to independe ntly

know that t here wer e ey ewitnesses, we cannot say that the trial cour

t’s deter mination that Wil liamson w as not ine ffe ctive in f ailing to c all exculpatory witnesses was c lear ly wrongand outside the zone of re asonable disag ree ment. See Sanc hez , 243 S.W .3d at 63. C. F ailure to Advise Villanu eva Re garding S uf fi ciency of the Evidence Vi lla nu e va c on te nd s h is tri a l c ouns e l pr o v i d e d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e wh e n h e fa ile d to a dv ise Villanueva that the evidenc e wa s insufficient and that V illanueva should not plead no c ontest. When Villanueva’ s motion t o suppress his confe ssion was denied, the stipulated evidenc e included Villanueva’ s confe ssion which encompa ssed ea ch ele ment of th e o ff en s e of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child. This evidenc e alone, if acc epted by the court, was sufficient t o convict Villanueva
o f ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild. See W right , 9 30 S.W. 2d

a t 13 3; se e als o D inn e ry , 592 S.W .2d at 353. Fur

thermore , Villanueva told the tria l judge that he “d i dn’t rea lly want to g o put04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 13- any body thro u gh s t re ss or any

thing e lse” by

g oing to tria l. Be cause there was suff icient evidenc e and Villanueva

desired not to put his family throug h a jury trial, Wil liamson’s expl anation re g arding the manner

in which he counsele d Villanueva demonstrates a rea sonable trial strateg y for a chieving Villanueva’ s g oal of avoiding both a tr ial and prison. D. Overall Ineff

ect ive Assistance of Counsel Villanueva c ontends that even if the foreg oing rea sons are insufficient to mee t the standard for inef fec tive assistance of counsel, we should consider the totality of t he circumstance s and find Villanueva’ s counsel wa s ineffe ctive. Villanueva list s n u m erous “ acts a nd omissions ” by Wil liamson a

rg uing that the combination of these show Wil liamson f ailed to meet o b

j ec tive pr of e ssi on a l st and ard s. Mo st of the ite ms c e nte r aro un d a fa ilure to inv e sti g a te the fa c ts o f t he c a se by conductingproper

discovery
. For example, Villanueva c ontends that the re port of t he S ANE nurse established Villanueva did not penetrate A.V.’ s vag ina with h i s fi n ger at the movies bec ause A .V.’s history states Villanueva “ touched me the re but ove r my ca p ris.” Villanueva

further argues that Will iamson sh o u l d h ave inve stigated such e vidence more thoroug hly and counse led Villanueva ag ainst a no contest plea . Although Williamson admitt ed he did not intervie w the SANE nurse to discove r other possible cause s of A.V.’ s redne ss, the State notified Wil liamson that it w o u l d n ot call the SANE nurse to testify , and Willi amson relied on t h at i ndication. Will iamson’s testimony provided a
re a so na ble tr ia l strate g y

fo r n ot i nte rv ie wi ngthe SAN E n ur se a bo ut h e r r e po rt
. F ur the rm or e , th e c ourt

of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls h a s h e ld t

hat “ the int e rp os iti on

of a lay e r o f f a br ic betwee n a per son’s hand a nd an [org an] upon which the hand is plac ed” w ill not prevent the commission of a crime. Se e Re sn ic k v . S tat e , 574 S.W .2d 558, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.]04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 14- 1978). As our si ster court in Ro dd a v . S tat e explained: “The off

ensive a ct is the pene tration of the fe ma le se xua l or g an w ithhis ha nd or fi ng e rs . I t do e s n ot m a tte r w heth e r h is h and wa s e nc a se d in a g love or be tween he r panties a nd her shor

ts or outside her shorts so long as his hand ac complished the pen et ra tion.” Se e Ro dd a v . S tat e , 9 26 S.W. 2d

37 5, 37 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1 99 6, pe t. ref ’d). Eve n though the SANE nurse indicated no pene tration on the re port, she wa s not present at the a ssa ult , a nd sh e ne ve r a sk e d A .V . w he the r V ill anu e va pen etra te d h e r v a g ina

and a pp a re ntl y
re a c he d h e r c on c lus ion ba se d on A.V .’ s re sp on se that Vill anu e va ha d touc he d he r ove r he r c a pr is. Moreove r, Villanueva

asser ted in h i s s t at em ent t o the police: “T o Amanda I may have pe netrated slightly not deep.” Even if some o f W i l l i am s o n ’s ac t s fa i l edt o m ee to b j ec t i v e p ro fe s s i o n al standards, V illanueva
wo u l d s t i l l h av e to af

fi rm at i v el y p ro v e a rea s o n ab l e pr o b ab i l i t y t h at t h e re s u l t o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs would have be en diffe rent if Williamson had acted pr ofessionally
. See Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. G iv e n th a t V il la

n u e v a c o n f

e s s e d to th e a s s a

u lt an d A
. V
. w o u ld h a v e te s ti f ie d to th e a s s a

u lt, the
s t r e n g t h o f

t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s tV i l l an u e v a s u p p o rt s t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s j u d g m e n t
. C o n s e q u e n t l y, Vi l l an u ev a h as fa iled to affir matively prove a rea sonable proba

bility that the re sult of the proce eding s would h av e been diffe rent. See id. Ha vin g a lr e a dy

a dd re sse d Wil liamso n’ s a c ts reg ardinga promise of

community

supervision, possible exculpatory witnesses, and the sufficienc y of the e vid e nc e , w e c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on the ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la ims a nd

its denial of the motion for new trial wer e within the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment and we re not a n abuse of discretion. See Sanc hez , 243 S.W .3d at 63.04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 15- F AI L URE T O W I T H D R A W P L E A OR F I ND V I L L ANUE VA N OT G U I LTY As to V ill anu e va ’s c la im that th e tr ia l ju dg e sh ou ld have wi thd ra wn his ple a and fo un d h im
no t g uil ty or g uil ty of a le sse r of fe ns e , we dis a g re e . I n a be nc h tr ia l on a ple a , th e tr ia l c ourt ha s a du ty to c on sid e r t

he e vid e nc e pr e se nte d a

nd fi nd the de fe nd ant guil ty , g uil ty of a le sse r o ff e ns e , if any , or not g uilty
. Hi nk

le v . S tat e , 934 S.W .2d 146, 148 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1996, pet. ref ’d). Even if ther e is evidenc e introduce d which re asonably and f ai rl y ra ises a doubt re g ardingthe de fe nd ant’ s g uil t, t

he tr ia l judg e ha s the re sp on sib ili ty to de te rm ine wh e the r the ple a wa s v olu nta ri ly and knowing ly g iven when considering the totality of the c ircumstance s. Id. at 149. A plea will not be considered “involuntary simply beca use t he sentence ex cee ded what the appe llant expected, eve n if that expectation was raised by his attorney .” Id. (c i t i n g Ga lv an v . S tat e , 5 2 5 S. W. 2 d

2 4 , 2 6 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 75 )) . T he de c isi on to s ua sp on te wi thd

ra w a ple a of no c on te st is, the re fo re , w ith in the trial cour

t’s discretion. Id. Be cause the trial cour t is the fact- finder in a

bench trial, howeve r, there “see ms to be no valid rea son for the court to w ithdraw the guilty [or no contest] pl ea a

nd enter a plea of not g uilty .” Id. at 148. At the plea hear ing, the trial judge acc epted Villanueva’ s plea of no contest afte r the prope r ad m o n i shments and Villanueva ’s re sponse of “ No, sir” whe n asked if a ny one had “ promised . . . any thing to g et y ou to plead nolo contende re.” Villanueva stipulated that he had se x ually assaulted A.V., and he stipulated to the S tate’s evidence which included his hand-w ritten statement. At the sentenc ing he aring , Villanueva te stified that he pled no c ontest b eca use he “ felt that [he] was acc used of something that [he] didn’t do, and [he] di dn’t re al l y wa nt to go put any body throug h stress or any thing e lse.” Villanue va testified that his police state ment was the r esult of his nervousne ss and the po lic e de te c tiv e te lli nghim wh a t to wr ite . A lth ou g h V ill anu e va c la ime d, in o pe n c ourt , th a t hi s04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 16- police stateme nt was untrue a nd claimed, in his aff

idavit, that Williamson told him “the only way that Iwould g et [communit y supervision was] if I pled ‘no conte st’ to the char g es,” V illanueva ne ver mentioned any

other e x culpatory evidenc e. Even if the evidence prese nted at the se ntencinghear ing
rea sonably raised a doubt a s to V illanueva’ s g uilt, the trial judge was not r eq u i re d t o wi thdraw Villanueva’ s plea be cause “the trial court, as trier of fac t, may find the def endant guilty

of a le sser offe nse or not g uilty

despite the plea .” See id. at 1 4 8 (c i t i n g Mo on v . S tat e , 572 S.W
. 2 d 6 8 1, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (op. on m otion for r eh’g )). The trial judg e had the discretion to deter mine whether Villanueva’ s plea was voluntary and whether the evidenc e was sufficient to support such
a plea. See id. a t 149. Th e fa c t- fi nd e r i s th e so le jud g e of the fa c ts, the c re dib ili ty

of the wi tne sse s, and the we ight g iven to their testi m ony . Sh ar p v . S tat e , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 8 6 ). As the fa ct-finde r, the trial judg e could have re asonably chosen to be lieve Villanueva ’s stipulated testimony and st atement to the pol ice and not to believe his later rec antation. See id. The trial judg e did not abuse his discretion therefor e, by failing to withdraw Villanue va’s no c ontest plea, f i n d h i m g u i l t y o f

a l e s s e r o f f e n s e , o r f i n d h i m n o tg u i l t y. F AI L URE T O G I V E S EXU A L O F F E NDE R R E GI S T RAT I ON A DM ONI S HM E NT Vi lla nu e va a rgue s h is p le a

wa s n ot c omplete ly

vo lun tary

be c a us e the tr ia l ju dg e fa ile d to admonish Villanueva a s require d by Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e ar ticle 26.13(a )(5) that he would have to r eg ister as a sex off ender . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 26.13 (V ernon Supp. 2007). Villanueva

contends that be cause he wa s unawa re of the full co nsequenc es of his plea , he would have likely

chang ed his dec ision to plead no contest. Although the rec ord establishes that the trial court e rre d by

not givingVillanueva the admonishment reg arding sexual off ender reg istration,
we revie w this error unde r a ha rmless err or ana ly sis. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2 (b ); An de rso n v . S tat e , 18204

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 17- S.W .3d 914, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We consider the entire rec ord to determine w hether we have a fair a ssuranc e that the de fenda nt would not have cha

ng ed his mind had the trial court admonished him. Id. at 919. Upon a r eview of the entire rec ord, we conclude Villanueva w as otherwise pr operly

admonished and unde rstood the punis h m ent rang e he f ace d by pleadingno contest. B eca

use Villanueva ’s conf

ession was he ld t o be admissible by the trial cour

t, the State’s
case ag ainst Villanueva w as strong , espec ially if corr oborate d by A.V.’s pr obable testimony . Once Villanueva kne w the conf ession was going to be admitt ed, W illiamson and Vill anueva spent one and
a ha lf ho u r s d i s c u s s i n g V i l l an u e v a ’ s o p t i o n s , an d V i l l an u e v a

d e c i d e d h e d i d n o tw an tt o p u th is family throug h a jury trial. Even though he was a war e and w as fur

ther a dmonished by

the trial cour

t that he could be sentenc ed to prison, he c hose to enter a p l ea o f n o contest. L ater , during the
s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, h e r ei t er at edt h at h i s m o t i v at i o nfo r e n t er i n g a p l eawa s t o av o i d “p u t [ t i n g] any body throug h stress.” B eca

use the re cord r efle cts Villanueva was primarily motivated to enter
a ple a du e to h is d e sir e to a

vo id a jur y tr ia l and his hope of com mun ity

su pe rv isi on , w e are fa ir ly
a ssu re d n o s ub sta

nti a l rig hts we re a ff

e c te d by the tr ia l cou

rt ’s fa ilure to ad

mon ish Vi lla

nu e va wi th
re g ard to the se xua l of

fe nd e r r e g istratio n r e qu ir e me nt, and Vi lla nu e va wo uld no t ha ve c ha ng e d h is decision to enter a no contest plea had he been so admonished by the trial court. See id. a t 92 1; see als o M c Coy v . S tate , No. 05-05-00458- CR, 2007 W L2325509, at *3 (Te x . App.—Dallas Aug . 13, 2007, no pet.) (not de signated for publication). M O D IF ICA TIO N O F J UDGMENT Vi lla nu e va c on te nd s and

the S tat e con c e de s th e jud g me nt e nte re d b y the tr ia l c ourt

in t his
ma tte r sho uld be mod if

ie d to ind ic a te Vi lla

nu e va wa s c on vic te d o nly

of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hild. The rec ord ref

lects that the judg ment err oneously indicates Villanue va wa s convicted of04

- 07

- 00 59 9- CR

- 18- in d e c e n c y w it h a c h il d e v e n th o u g h th e St a te w it h dr e w th e in d e c e n c y

w it h a c h il d a ll e g a ti o n . We the re fo re mod if

y the jud g me nt t o r e fl e c t V ill anu e va wa s c on vic te d o nly

of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hild. Villanueva’s f inal issue is sustained.

C ONCL US I ON For the fore g oing rea sons, we modify the t rial cour t’s judgme nt to indicate Villanueva was convicted only

of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild. W e af firm the t rial cour

t’s judgme nt as modified. Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh