### NUM BER 13-07- 0064 5-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 - 

## EDI NBURG
REY M UN DO GA RC IA

PER EZ , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of C alh ou n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t, Rey mundo Gar ci a Per ez , appeal s from hi s c onv ic ti on for the o ff ense of delivery of more than four gr a m s b u t l e ss than 200 g rams o f a contro lled sub stan ce (c ocai ne) , a firs t deg re e felony

. See T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481. 112( d) (V er non 200 3)

. After Per ezente re d a p lea of g uil ty , t he tr ial co urt found him g uil ty and2

condu cte d a p uni shmenthear ing

. At t he c oncl usi on of the puni shmenthear ing , the tr ial
cour t s entenc ed Perezto tw enty y ears' co nfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the T exas Departm ent of Criminal Justice (ID- T DCJ) and assesse d a $1 0,0 00 f ine an d cou rt
cos ts. Pe re zfil ed a moti on for new tr ial ass erti ng ine ff ect iv e ass is tanc e of coun sel

. After condu cti ng a he ar ing on t he moti on, t he tr ial co urt den ied Perez 's moti on. P e re z co m p la in s b y t h e fo l l o wi n g i s s u e s t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l wa s in e f fe c t ive beca use: ( 1) co unse l was no t knowledgeable with resp ect to w het her Pe rezw as eligible for def erred ad judicat ion; (2) Pe re z’s plea of g uilty w as no t knowing ly and v olun tarily entered g iv en c ounse l' s m isr e p re se n ta ti o n rega rd in g de fe rre d ad ju d ica ti o n ; and ( 3) co unsel did n o t re pr esentPerezz eal ousl y . Per ezarg ues that becau se of couns el' s a ll eg ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e, t he t r i al c ou rt er r ed i n de ny i ng h i s mo ti on for n ew t r i al

. W e affi r m. I. Background A . Plea Hearing On Octo ber 7, 2 007 , af

ter calling th e case to trial, P erez ackn owl edged to the court tha t he ha d read and d is c u s s ed wi th cou nsel a ple a me mo rand um , a certif ication of his ri g ht to appeal, and a judi ci al confess ion , all of w hic h w er e admi tted int o ev ide nce w it hout obj ect ion

. Al so admit ted as ex hib it s w er e c opi es of Pere z 's off ense re por ts, phot og ra phs
o f th e sce n e of

th e o f fe n se , th e b a cks e a t o f

th e ca r in volve d in th e of fe n se , a red gif

t b a g, cocain e on a scale, a lock bla de kn ife, an d a car renta l shee t. In open court, the trial court admoni shed Per ezof the p uni shmentrang e of fiv e to nin ety -n ine y ears a nd a fine notto
ex ceed $10,000 , after

w hic h Perezpleaded g uil ty to the off ense of del iv er y of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e as al leg ed i n the i ndi ctment

. Perezst ated tha t h e di d s o bec ause the all eg ati ons w er e tr ue and cor re ct. H e al so state d t h a t h e w as ple adi ng g uil ty freel y and3

v olu ntar il y , k now ing ly

and int ell ig entl y . Base d on the ev ide nce pr esent ed and on hi s p lea of gu il ty , t he tr ial co urt found Pe re zg uil ty of the c harg ed offense a n d s e t sentenci ng for that afternoo n. B. Punishment Hearing 1. Captain Matsis' s Testimony At the pun ishm ent hea ring, Ed Matsis, a capta in w ith the P ort Lavaca Po lice Dep artment, tes ti fied th at he beg an w or ki ng w it h the departmentin 2003 and t hat t his w as the larg est coc ain e del iv er y cas e—a li ttl e les s t han four-a nd- a- hal f ounces —he had s een si nce he beg an w or ki ng there. Cap t. Ma tsi s a ls o testi fied that he tal ked br iefly w it h Perez after his ar re st and as ked Per ezw hether he w as ass oci ate d wit h a g ang kn ow n as the Her manos Pi sto leros (H PL)

. Cap t. Ma tsi s e x pla ine d tha t “ [Perez ] i ndi cat ed th at he w as not
re pr esent ing now , w hic h to [C apt. Ma tsi s] meant t hat h e was n 't ev ide nci ng tat toos or act iv ely par

ti ci pati ng in g ang act iv it y ." On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , C apt. Ma tsi s t est ified that , altho ugh the records he rese arch e d we re not com preh ensive, he foun d no thing in his
re search of ga ng s i ndi cat ing Perezthatw as a member of HP L. 2. Detec tiv e Keil' s Testimony Do n a ld K e il , a d e t e c t ive wi t h t h e P o rtL a va c a P o li c e D e p a rt m e n ta n d l e a d d e t e c t ive on th e c ase, tes ti fied th at “ a c ocai ne transac ti on [w as] se t up betw een [an informant] and [Perez ] .

. . .” Detect iv e Kei l w as tol d tha t t he i nformant and c o- defendant M atthe w Rami re zdi sc uss ed th e amountto be deli v ered and the cos t. At some p oin t, the i nformant tol d R amirezthat h e c oul d notmake itto the d eli v er y si te an d w oul d i nst ead be sendi ng his "co usi n Gordo" w ho w as actu all y Of ficer Ric hard Cordov a, an undercov er pol ic e off ic er
w it h the C it y

of Por t Lav aca. D etec ti v e Kei l tes ti fied th at R amirezco ntac ted O ff ic er4

Cordov a to chang e the loc ati on of t he del iv er y . R amirezw as the d ri v er of the c ar

us ed th e nig ht t he dr ug s w er e del iv er ed. Perezw as a passeng er in the bac k s eat o f the c ar . Foun d in the c ar w er e an open l ock

bl ade k nife recov er ed from the back seatfloor board and a c ar re n t a l a gr e e m e n t s h o win g t h a t P e re z h a d re n t e d t h e c a r ea rl ie r th a t e v e n i n g . D e t e c t ive Kei l ide nti fied State' s ex hib it11 as the bag g ie of coc ain e tha t w as re cov er ed atthe sc ene. Acc ordin g to Det ect iv e Keil , Off ic er Cordov a notified hi m of the time and loc ati on of the t ra nsac ti on. After some s ur v eil lan ce, D etec ti v e Kei l tes ti fied that he g av e the order to
mo v e in and ef

fect the a rrest. P erez ran f rom the sce ne; De tective K eil g ave chase. He
saw Perez drop a bag g ie of coca ine i n the mid dle of a dr iv ew ay . He als o s aw Perezdrop a redd ish-colored g if

t bag. Af ter chasin g Pere zf or a ppro x ima tely one block, Dete ctiv e Keil approache d Perezand tol d hi m to g et do w n on the g ro und. Perezco mpli ed. O n c ro s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , D e t e c t i v e K e i l t e s t i fi e d t h a t h e h a d n o te x a mi n e d t h e k n i fe fo r f in ge rp ri n t s a n d h a d n o to b s e rve d P e re z wit h a kn if e in h is p o s s e s s io n . W h e n De t e c t ive Kei l w as ask ed w ho, i n hi s o pin ion , w as cont ro ll ing the del iv er y , he ans w er ed th at he w as not s ur e. Itw as his "understa ndi ng . . . R amirezw as prov idi ng the infor mati on to Officer Cordov a on the l ocat ion of w her e the del iv er y w as g oin g to occ ur " and t hat i t w as Rami re z
w ho had neg oti ated w it h the i nformant. 3. Officer Cordov a's Testimony The Stat e c all ed Officer C ordov a to tes ti fy. Off ic er Cordov a confir med that he w as coope ra ti ng w it h an infor mant. H e also st ated that his contac t w as w it h Ramirezand not
w it h Perezbefore the n ig ht i n q uest ion

. How ev er , as he p ar ked his ca r that nig ht, Rami re z and Pe re zapproache d i n a r e n ta l ca r. R amirezg ot ou t of the re ntal ca r and c onv ersed b ri e f ly wi t h O f

f ic e r Co rd o va , t e ll in g h im t o ge tin t o t h e b a c kse a to f t h e re n t a l c a r. Pe re z,5

wh o wa s si t t in g i n t h e b a c kse a t , h a d a re d b a g a n d p o i n t e d t o it

. Of f ic e r C o rd o va int er pr eted thi s t o mean t hat Per ezhad the c ocai ne i n the bag

. Off ic er C ordov a c ar ri ed
w it h hi m $2, 2 5 0 w it h w hic h to pur chas e the dr ug s. Perezq uest ion ed th e amount , and Off ic er C ordov a beg an c ount in g the money . Off ic er C ordov a tes ti fied th at, at t his poi nt, Per ezl ooked up and "saw headl ig hts co ming throug h the frontw ind shi eld of the c ar and he to ld .

. . Ra m ire z to g o, g o, g o." Per ezg ra bbed t he red bag and attempt ed to flee. Off ic er C ordov a too k t he money and pul led R amirezaw ay from t he g earshift so thathe
w oul d notput the c ar

i n dr iv e. Onl y

after thi s d id Off ic er

C ordov a s ee th e k nife. On cross examina tion, Of f icer Cordova agreed thathe w as talking w ith Ram irezin
n e go t ia t in g t h is d e a l , a n d itwa s n o tu n t il h e a p p ro a c h e d t h e ve h ic le t h a th e m e tP e re z. Rami re zdi re cte d Officer C ordov a to Per ez . He had not had any co nv ersat ion w it h Perez pr ior to that ti me. Pe re z did no t t e st if

y at t h e pu n ish m e n t h e a rin g. 4. Closing A rguments Dur ing cl osi ng arg ument, the S tate ask ed for a sentenc e of tw enty y ears b ased on: (1 ) Per ez ’s tw o pr ior felony conv ic ti ons; ( 2) the larg e del iv er y of coc ain e w it h w hic h Perez
w as inv olv ed; ( 3) Perez 's pr ior g ang i nv olv ement; (4) th e p re se nce of a kni fe in t he c ar Perez rented ; and (5) Perez 's appe aran ce as the d ir e c t o r of the act iv ity . Th e Sta te also
arg ued i ncor re ctl y

thatPerezw as not "e li g ible f o r deferred probati on." See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.12, § 5( a) (V er non Supp. 2008) ( set ti ng out eli g ibi li ty for d eferr ed
a d ju d ic a t io n ). Pe re z' s co u n s e l d id n o to bje c tt o t h is m is s t a t e m e n to f la w. Dur ing hi s c los ing arg ument, Per ez 's co unsel arg ued f or deferred adj udi cat ion as a reason abl e alt er nati v e. He suppo rt ed thi s posi ti on by arg uin g that Per ezdi d nothav e a6

long c ri m in al history and had not en gaged in cri min al activi ty for the p ast six y ears. Cou nsel al so urg ed th at P er eza d m it te d hi s respon si bil it y and acc epted his mis tak e. Cou nsel arg ued t hat Rami re z , not Perez , direct ed the acti v it y . Acc ordin g to couns el, Perez fled the scene, as any

one w oul d do in thi s s it uati on, b ut di d nottak e the w eapon t hat w as found in the c ar . He did not re si st w hen he w as order ed to ge t dow n on the g ro und. Cou nsel al so infor med the cour t t hat P er ezw as employ ed and had a family to suppo rt

. In
summar y , c ounse l arg ued t hat: [d]e ferred ad judicat ion is not so me thing tha t is an easy way out on these ki nds of mat ters. This i s a n i ndi v idu al w ho w oul d be at t he C our t' s d is creti on loo ki ng at up to ten y ears o n deferred adj udi cat ion , and i f he mess es up, t he Co u rth a s t h e f u ll ra n ge o f p u n is h m e n t

. A n d t h is b e in g a f ir s t [ -] d e gr e e fe lo n y, thes e matters h av e been dis cus sed w it h thi s D efendant and y et he 's as ki ng the C our t t o c ons ider that ra ng e of puni shmentand all of the fact s a nd ci rc umstan ces i n thi s c ase. In respo nse, the Sta te ag ain arg ued tha t it did not believe tha t Perez w as “eligi ble for defer re d probati on or any ki nd of probati on w it h his pr ior re cord, and he' s a lready pl ed g uil ty

. Y ou'd hav e to all ow hi m to w it hdr aw

his g uil ty

plea and place him on def er re d, an d he's not eli g ibl e for it , nor does he d eser

v e i t." Ag ain , c ounse l did not obj ect

. Af ter hea ring closing arg um ent s, the trial court impose d a sen ten ce of tw ent y y ears' confine ment, as re q uest ed by the Stat e. C. M otion for New Trial Hear ing 1. Pere z's Tes timony At t he hear ing on h is m oti on for newtri al, Pereztesti fied that he entered a ple a of g uil ty upon couns el' s a dv ic e. Per ezfurth er tes ti fied th at c ounse l tol d him that "if [he] w ent before t h e j u d g e t h a t [ h e ] w o u l d h a v e a p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e c e i v i n g d e fe r r e d a d j u d i c a t ion by enter ing a g uil ty

pl ea." He als o sta ted t hat d eferr ed adj udi cat ion w as ex pla ine d to him asW e no t e t hat Per ez pl eaded gui l t y t o t he o ff ense ofunl awf ul possessi on ofm ar i huana i n Novem ber 1 2000. Adj udi cat i on was def er r ed, and he was pl aced on co m m uni t y supe r v i si on f or t hat off ense. 7 follows: "T hat the judge w ould imp lem ent the def erred adjudica tion to me if I w ent before him. That' s w hat h e w as tr y ing to tel l me." P er ez 's understa ndi ng of deferred adj udi cat ion
w as that he w oul d notg o to ID -TD CJ , butthathe w oul d be under co mmunity

su per v is ion , a form of p roba tion. Perez te stif ied tha t, on the d ay of t rial, h e had t he d iscussion wi th his 1
couns el, dur ing w hic h ti me cou n se l a d vised hi m thathe w oul d be eli g ibl e for deferred adj udi cat ion

. Per ezalso tes ti fied that couns el had notas ked him about any w it ness es, had not subp oen aed any w itnesse s, and h ad not f iled any m otion s, includin g mo tions to sup press. Acc ordin g to Per ez , c ounse l spok e to him onl y on t he day s h e w as sc hedul ed for cour t; the tr ial had been resc hedul ed approx imat ely four or fiv e ti mes. Althoug h Perezasked to meet
w it h c ounse l outs ide of the c our thous e, t hey

had been un abl e to do s o. Per ezas ked couns el about deferred adj udi cat ion becau se that w as w hat h e w anted to recei v e. Acc ordin g to Per ez , c ounse l adv is ed hi m thathe w oul d hav e to g o before the jud g e, no t a jur

y , in order

to re cei v e def er re d adj udi cat ion

. Acc ordin g to Per ez , bas ed on the a dv ic e of coun se l, h e d e cid ed to g o before the tr ial co urt t o as k for mer cy and for deferred adj udi cat ion

. Per ezst ated that he w oul d not hav e entered a pl ea of g uil ty i f he had k now n tha t he w as not g oin g to re cei v e deferred adj udi cat ion

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Pe re zac know led g ed that he had been off er ed, b ut t ur ned dow n, a ple a ag re ement under w hic h he w oul d hav e s er v ed ei g ht y ears i n pr is on. Per ez deni ed, h ow ev er , bei ng off er ed and tur nin g d o wn a fifteen- y ear pl ea barg ain

. Per ez ag re ed th at he w as nev er off er ed probati on of any ki nd butst ated that he w as tol d tha t he "coul d" recei v e i t. Perezal so ag re ed th at he ente re d an open pl ea to the cour t.8 2. Counsel' s Testimony At t he hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial , Pe re z 's tr ial co u n sel t est ified thathe
re q uest ed defer re d adj udi cat ion becau se Per ez ask ed him to do so. After r ev iew ing the ple a h e a r i n g t ra n s c r i p t , c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a th e h a d a s k e d fo r p ro b a t i o n a n d d e fe r re d adju dicatio n as alte rnative sente nces. Cou nsel r ecal led thatthey w er e s et for

tri a l a nd th at P er ezdec ide d he w anted to ent er an op en guiltyp lea and le t the co urt decid e pu nishm ent . Counse l denie d ha v ing told Per ezhe c oul d tr

y to g et de f e rred adj udi cat ion

. Rat her , c ounse l tes ti fied th at he di d not
re commend that Per ezenter an open gui lt y plea in an attempt to get deferr ed adj udi cat ion

. Cou nsel tol d Perezw hat h e bel iev ed w oul d be the resul t of ente ri ng an o pen g uil ty ple a to the c our t. Counse l did not bel iev e tha t he ev er tol d Perezthathe w as eli g ibl e for deferred adj udi cat ion . W hen asked w hether Perezw as, in fact, el ig ibl e for deferred adj udi cat ion , couns el re spond ed, "N o, he w as not." Couns el ex pla ine d that he ask ed th e tr ial co urt for d e fe r re d a d j u dic ati on bec ause, bas ed on his ex per ien ce, defendants often persi st in ask ing
coun sel to do things for the m and the only w ay to mainta in a record of w hat w as do ne is to as k fo r itrat h e r th a n fa ce a grie van ce co m m it te e he a rin g. Cou nsel tes ti fied th at he and Per ezhad tal ked about probati on eli g ibi li ty m any ti mes as they approac hed tri al. Cou nsel had extens iv e talk s w it h the distr ic t at tor ney aboutthe possib ility

of an alte rnative to a long prison term for Perez. C oun se l a s k e d the district attor ney for p ro bati on butnev er for d eferr ed adjudi cat ion

. Per ezknew that c ounse l w as ask ing for p ro bati on. Acc ordin g to couns el, Perezstar ted demandin g that he ask the ju dg e for deferred adju dicatio n after the plea was entered , notbefore—b etween the mo rning hearing w hereAt t he m ot i on f or r ehear i ng, t r i al coun sel ear l i er t est i f i ed a s f ol l ows: 2 Q : O k ay . I guess w ha t I ' m t ry i ng t o f i gur e out – and I under st and y our r at i onal e an d y our r easoni ng – ok ay , but y ou st at ed t hat [ Per ez ] want ed y ou t o go ahe ad a nd a sk fo r d e fe rr e d a d ju d i c a ti o n ; c o rr e c t? A : C o rr e c t. Q : And he t ol d y ou t hat he woul d go ahead and pl ead gui l t y i f y ou asked hi m f or – i fy ou a s k e d th e C o u rt fo r d e fe rr e d ; c o rr e c t? A: As I r ecal l , y es. 9 the p le a was entered and the a fternoon se ntenc ing hear ing

. W hen i t w as broug ht t o coun sel's atte ntion that h e h a d earlier testif ied th at Pe rezsaid he would plea d guilty in return for coun sel asking for def erred ad judicat ion, co unse l said that he m isspoke beca use that w as not t he w ay

he u ndersto od th e q uest ion ing

. C ounse l tes ti fied th at, in fact, P er ez 2 did not say

he w oul d pl ead g uil ty

i f couns el ask ed th e c our t for deferred adj udi cat ion

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , c ounse l ag re ed th at P er ezhad re fused tw o prev iou s plea barg ain off ers o f eig ht y ears a nd fifteen years . The Stat e had nev er off er ed Perez probati on due to hi s p ri or felony co nv ic ti on. Coun s el t es ti fi ed t ha t he d i d no t s ub po en a w i tn es s es o r fi l e a mo ti on t o s up press Per ez ’s g ang act iv it y sta tement. The on ly i nformati on broug ht t o the tr ial co urt’ s a ttent ion during the p unish me nt he aring concernin g the HPL w ere stat em ent s mad e by Perezw hile he w as under

cu sto dia l int er ro gat ion

. Cou nsel ac know led g ed th at P er ez 's st atements
re g ardin g ear li er

H PL g ang aff il iat ion coul d hav e been suppress ed becau se at the t ime the state me nts we re m ade , Perez had no t bee n read his Mi ra nda r ig hts

. See Mir

anda v. Ar izona , 384 U. S. 436, 469- 70 (1 966)

. Cou nsel ex pla ine d tha t he did not do s o bec ause, at t hat t ime, he w as w or ki ng on a pl ea ar ra ng ement, and i t w as pr emature. Af ter hea ring closing arg um ent s, the trial cou rt d enie d Perez's m otion for new trial. II. Lack of Know ledgeI n hi s f i r st i ssue, Per ez al so asse r t s t hat he pl ea ded gui l t y onl y beca use co unsel t ol d hi m t hat he 3 w o u ld r e c e iv e d e f e r r e d a d j u d ic a tio n ; t h u s c o u n s e l's a s s is ta n c e w a s in e ff e c tiv e . B e c a u s e th is a s s e r tio n is i nconsi st ent wi t h t he b asi c pr em i se of hi s f i r st i ssue— t hat coun sel ' s bel i ef t ha t Per ez was no t el i gi bl e f or def er r ed a dj ud i c ati on resul t ed i n i neff ect i v e assi st ance— we wi l l add r ess i t as par t of Per ez ' s secon d i ssue c h a l l e n g i n g th e vo l u n ta rin e s s o f h i s p l e a . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 10 By h i s fi rs t i s s u e , P e r e z g e n e r a l l y c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e c o u n s e l w as not know led g eabl e w it h respec t t o w hether Perezw as eli g ibl e for deferred adju d ica ti o n, t he tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing Perez 's m o ti o n f o r new tr ial

. I t i s u ndi sput ed th at P er ezw as 3 eli g ibl e for deferred adj udi cat ion pursuantto arti cl e 42, se cti on 5( a) of the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re and that couns el tes ti fied, a t t he moti on for new tr ial hear ing , that Per ezw as not eli g ibl e. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 42 .12 , § 5(a).

A . A pp licab le L aw an d St and ard o f Rev iew In order to pr ev ail on a clai m of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el, Appl ic ant must sat is fy t h e tw o- prong tes t s et forth i n Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U. S. 6 68 ( 1984)

. Fi rs t, he mus t s how thatco unsel 's performanc e w as def icient. Howev er, t h e re is "a strong presum ption thatcoun sel's cond uct falls w it hin the w ide ra ng e of reas onabl e professi onal as si sta nce. " Id. at 689. Seco nd, A ppl ic ant mus t s how thathe w as pre

jud ic ed byco unsel 's defic ien t performa nce. To de mo nstrat e prejud ice, App licant "mu st show that the re is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l' s u nprofession a l er ro rs , t he re sul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. " Id. at 694. In Hill v. Lockh art , t he Sup re me C our t hel d tha t t he Strick lan d tes t app li es to chal len g es to g uil ty

pl eas based o n ineff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. 474 U. S. 5 2, 58 ( 1985)

. In t he c ontext of a g uil ty ple a, a defendant s ati sfies the pr eju dic e req uirement by sh ow ing thathe w oul d nothav e pl eaded g uil ty and w oul d hav e i nsi ste d on g oin g to tr ial

. Id. at 59. Ex par te Im oudu , No. AP
- 75 ,9 64 , 20 09 Te x . C r i m. A pp . LE X IS 7 30 , at* 5- 7 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . June 3, 200 9). A reason able proba bility is one suf

f icient to un derm ine con f iden ce in the outco me of

the proceed ing s. Thom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. This st andard appl ies to cl aims of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el in both the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e and the p uni shmentphas e i n non- capi tal tr ial s. Her nandez v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 770 , 770 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99).It i s u n d i s p u te d th a t t h e e x c e p ti o n s l i s te d i n s u b s e c ti o n (d ) d o n o t a p p l y i n th i s c a s e . See T EX
. C OD E 4 C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 42

. 12 , § 5 (a), (d) (V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). 11 W e ma y not spe culate as to the reaso ns beh ind trial coun sel's action s nor shou ld
w e tr y to sec ond g uess tr ial co unsel 's tac ti cal dec is ion s w hic h do not fal l below the obj ect iv e standard of r eason abl eness . Young v. State , 9 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 7 -3 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ; Bone v. State, 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2002) ( re v iew ing def ense coun sel's represen tatio n w i th g rea t de feren ce an d presu min g his action s fell w ithin the w ide rang e of

r eason abl e and professi onal as si sta nce)

. An app ell ant h as the b urden of prov ing i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of counsel by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 814

. Ar ti cl e 42. 12, s ect ion 5( a) of the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re prov ides for deferred adju dicatio n, in pe rtinen t part, a s follows: Except as provided by Subse ction (d) of t his section ,[ ] w hen in t he jud ge’s 4 opi nio n the bes t i n te re st of soci ety and the d efendant w il l be s er v ed, t he jud g e may, after

recei v ing a ple a of

gui lt y or pl ea of nol o c ontende re , hea ri ng the e v ide nce, and findi ng thati t s ubst anti ates the defendant’ s g u ilt , defer further proceed ing s w it hout e nter ing an a dju dic ati on of g uil t, and pl ace the defendant on communi ty su per v is ion

. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 42 .12 , § 5(a). Further , t h e c o d e o f criminal proce dure defines " ju d gm e n t" as "the w ri tten decl ar ati on of the cour t s ig ned by

the tr ial j udg e and entered of r ecord s how ing the conv ic ti on or a cqu it ta l of the defendant. " Id. at art. 42.01 § 1 ( Ver non 200 6)

. An oral findi ng of g uil t doe s n ot di v estthe tr ial co urt of i ts pow er to g ra nt deferred adj udi cat ion

. See W est v. St ate , 702 S.W .2d 6 29, 6 34- 35 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986)

. A defendant is el ig ibl e for deferred adj udi cat ion , a ty pe of probati on, unti l the p oin t the t ri al cour

t adj udg es him g uil ty

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . a rt

. 4 2

. 1 2, § 5(a ); W est , 702 S.W .2d a t 634 -3 5.12

W e rev iew

the tr ial cour

t’ s deni al of P er ez ’s moti on for new tr ial under

the abuse of dis creti on s tandard, Sal azar v. Sta te , 38 S. W .3d 141 , 148 (Tex. Cri m . A pp. 200 1),
re v iew ing the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav or abl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng . W

ebb v . St ate , 232 S. W .3d 1 09, 1 12 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009)

. W e uphold the tri al cour t' s rul ing if the r uli ng
w as not arbi trar

y and w as w it hin the z one of reaso nabl e di sag re ement. Id. "A trial cou rt abuse s i ts dis creti on in deny ing a moti on for new tr ial onl y w hen no re asona ble v iew of the
re cord coul d suppo rt the tr ial cour t' s ru li ng ." Id. (cit in g Cha rles v. State , 146 S.W .3d 2 04, 208 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04)). B. Discuss ion

1. Counsel's Condu ct During t he Ple a Heari ng Per ezco mplai ns of t he follo w ing non- act ion s of hi s couns el at the ple a hear ing : (1 )
couns el did not in f o rm the c our t t hat P er ezw oul d be seek ing deferred adj udi cat ion ; and (2 ) couns el did not ask

the cour t to defer a findi ng of g uil t. Perezas ser ts that thes e fail ur es re sul ted fro m c o u nsel 's l ack of know led g e tha t Pe re zco uld hav e recei v ed defer re d adj udi cat ion

. How ev er , as Pereznote s, the t ri al cour t ent er ed no w ri tten decl ara ti on reg ardin g Per ez ’s g u il t unt il the cour t s ig ned i ts w ri tten jud g ment foll ow ing the compl eti on of the sent enci ng hear ing

. Therefor e, the tr ial cour t’ s or al findi ng of g uil ty

at Per ez ’s pl ea hear ing did not d iv estthe cour

t of i ts pow er

to g ra nt P er ezdeferred adj udi cat ion

. See W est , 702 S.W .2d a t 634 -3 5. The tr ial co urt c oul d hav e set asi de it s findi ng at the conc lus ion of the pun ishm ent pha se an d place d Pere zon de ferred ad judicat ion if it w as t he trial cou rt’s opi nio n tha t t he bes t i nterestof soc iet y and the d efendant w oul d be ser v ed. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.12, § 5. Thus , nei ther a s tatementdur ing the ple a hear ing13

infor ming the cour

t t hat P er ezw oul d s eek deferred adj udi cat ion nor a req uestthatthe tr ial
cour t w it hhol d a fin din g of g uil t unt il a fte r the puni shmentphas e of tr ial w as re q uired. Beca use there i s a st ro ng presumpt ion that counsel 's conductf ell w it hin the w ide rang e of
re asona ble professi onal as si sta nce, w e c annot conc lud e tha t Pe re z has e sta bli shed d e fi c i e n tp e r

fo r ma n c e b a s e d o n c o u n s e l ' s n o n - a c t i o n s . Th e fi rs tp ro n g o f Str ickl and has not b een s ati sfied on th is bas is

. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 4. 2. Counsel's Condu ct During t he Punishme nt H ear ing Per ezfurth er

co mpla in s t hat h is co unsel di d notforc efull y adv ocat e for deferred
a d ju d ic a t io n b e c a u s e h e e rr o n e o u s ly b e li e ve d t h a tP e re z wa s n o te n t it le d t o re c e ive deferred adj udi cat ion

. Al thoug h couns el ask ed the cour t to c onsi der

deferred adj udi cat ion dur ing cl osi ng arg uments , he di d notobj ectto the S tate' s fol low ing r espon si v e arg ument: Fi rs t of all, I don' t beli ev e [Pere zis] eli g ibl e for deferred probati on or any ki nd o f p ro b a t io n wit h h is p ri o r r e c o r d , a n d h e ' s a lr e a d y p le d gu il t y. Yo u ' d h a ve to allow him to w ithdra w his g u il t p le a an d place him on def erred, a nd h e's not e li g ibl e for it , nor

does he d eser

v e i t. The prosec utor inc or re ctl y sta ted that he did not bel iev e Per ez w as eli g ibl e fo r de ferr ed probati on and lat er

st ated that Per ezw as not e li g ibl e for itand did not de se rve it. How ev e r , h e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t P e r e z h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y a n d t h a t t h e c o u rt w o u l d hav e to all ow w it hdr aw al of his p le a t o p lace hi m on defer re d adj udi cat ion

. This l astst atement
re co gni zes th a t Pe re z was, in fa ct , e ligib le fo r de fe rre d ad ju d ica ti o n . T h e re fo re , a lt h o u gh
coun sel's incorrect be lief may have resulte d in his decision not to obje ct to th e prose cuto r's
arg ument, the record does not suppo rt a conc lus ion that couns el' s act ion fell outs ide of the
w ide rang e of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ickl and , 668 U .S. at 68 9. Moreover, ev en were w e to con c lu d e cou nsel’s pe rforma nce was def icient in this regard, Perez has not shown "tha t the re is a reaso nab le prob ability tha t, bu t for coun sel's14

unprofessi onal er ro rs , the re sul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. " Id

. Per ez did not est abl is h tha t, had c ounse l obj ect ed to the prosec utor 's i ncor re ct arg ument, the t ri al
c o u rtwo u ld h a ve d e fe rr e d h is a d ju d ic a t io n . P e re z wa s ch a rg e d wit h a f ir s td e gr e e fe lo n y. He had a pr ior

co nv ic ti on for the s tate jai l felony off ense of poss ess ion of mari huana a nd a pr ior co nv ic ti on for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. Ba sed on Perez ’s tes ti mony , he re cei v ed
a p le a o f fe r o f e ig h tye a rs in p ri s o n , wh ic h h e re f u s e d

. Ba s e d o n co u n s e l' s t e s t im o n y, Per ezal so re fused a p lea off er of fifteen yea rs . Defer re d adjudi cat ion w as nev er off er ed
as par t of a pl ea ag re ement. In lig ht of

t he foregoing, we ca nno t conclu de th at Pe rezhas sho w n tha t the re is a
re asona ble probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l' s l ack of know led g e reg ardin g deferred adju dica t io n a n d his alleged errors, if an y , the trial court w ould have def erred his adj udi cat ion

. W e als o note that, in the cont ext of this g uil ty pl ea, t he preju dic e req uirement coul d hav e been est abl is hed i f Per ezhad show n tha t he w oul d nothav e pl eaded g uil ty and
w oul d hav e i nsi ste d on g oin g to tr ial

. See Hil l , 474 U. S. a t 59. I n thi s c ase, al thoug h Perez a s s e rt s t h a th e wo u ld n o th a ve p le a d e d gu il t y, itis a rg u a b l e o n l yt h a tP e re z wo u ld h a ve cons ide re d a plea barg ain

. Per ezdoes not contend that he w oul d hav e, i nst ead, ins is ted on g oin g to tr ial , and the re cord does not suppo rtthatco ncl usi on. Perez , t her efore, has
n o tsa t i s fi e d th e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Str ickl and as to thi s a rg ument. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 4. T h u s , re vie win g t h e e vid e n c e in t h e li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ' s ru li n g, we conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt did not abuse it s dis creti on in deny ing Perez 's moti on for new tr ial on thes e g ro unds. The tr ial cour t' s ru li ng w as not ar bit ra ry and w as w it hin the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. See Webb , 232 S .W .3d a t 112 . Counse l's condu ct fell w ithin15

the w ide rang e of r eason abl e pro f e ss ion al ass is tanc e and did not pr eju dic e Perez . See Sal azar , 38 S.W .3d a t 148

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Per ez ’s first is sue. III . Vol un ta rin ess o f Plea By his secon d issue, Perez conten ds tha t the trial court abu sed its dis c re tion in den y ing his motion for new trial becau se his guilty plea was not knowingl y and inv olun tarily ent ered . Perez com plains th at his trial co unse l ind uced him to plead g uilty by lead ing him to be li ev e he w oul d rece iv e def er re d adjudi cat ion probati on. Beca use thi s i ss ue i s b ased
o n a p re m is e in c o n s is t e n twit h t h a tr a is e d i n h is f ir s ti s s u e , we re vie w ita s a n a lt e rn a t ive
arg ument. A . A pp licab le L aw an d St and ard o f Rev iew A prima facie sho w ing that a guilty plea wa s m a de volunta rily and knowi ngly

is est abl ishe d wh e n the re cord i ndi cat es that the t ri al cour t proper ly

admoni shed the defendant

. Labi

b v . St ate , 239 S.W .3d 3 22, 3 32 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, no p e t. ) (ci ti n g Ma rt

ine z v. State , 981 S .W .2d 1 95, 1 97 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 8) (p er curiam); Ar re ola v. Sta te , 207 S.W .3d 387 , 391 (Tex. App. –Hou st o n [ 1 s t Dist.] 2006 , no pe t.)). W hen a pr ima facie show ing is pr esent ed by the record, t he burden on appeal sh ifts to t he defendant t o s how

thathi s p lea w as inv olu ntar y . Id. (cit in g Edwar

ds v. State , 921 S.W .2d 477 , 479 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 96, no pe t.)). "[A] g uil ty

pl ea i s n ot v olu ntar

y i f made as a resul t of i neff ect iv e a ss istance of
couns el, because itdoes not re pr esentan i nformed c hoi ce. " Id. (cit in g Ex par te B ur ns , 601 S. W .2 d 37 0 , 3 7 2 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ) ( e n b a n c)) . " [M ]i sin fo rm a ti o n co n ce rn in g a ma tter, such as proba tion, abo ut w hich a d ef end ant is not const itution ally or statut orily ent itled to be informe d, m ay rend er a guilty plea involunta ry

if th e de f e n d a n t shows his16

g uil ty plea w as act ual ly

i nduce d by

the mis infor mati on." Br own v. Sta te , 943 S.W .2d 3 5, 4 2 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Har ri son v. State , 68 8 S. W .2 d 49 7, 4 99
- 50 0 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 198 5) (en ban c)). T o f ind a ple a w as involunta ry , the record mu st cont ain conf irmatio n of

the m isinforma tion b y coun sel or docu me nts au gmen ting def end ant ’s tes ti mon y t h a t rev eal the mis infor mati on and show i ts conv ey ance to t he defendant. Ex parte Griffin , 679 S.W .2d 1 5, 17 -1 8 ( Tex

. Crim

. App. 1984) ( en banc ); Fi m ber g v . St ate , 922 S.W .2d 205 , 207 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 96, pet. ref 'd). Beca use Pe rezis challenging the volunt ariness of h is plea, we ex am ine th e record
as a w hol e. See W

il li am s v . St ate , 522 S.W .2d 4 83, 4 85 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1975) ; Fim berg , 922 S. W .2d a t 207

. W e rev iew the tr ial co ur

t’ s d eni al of Pere z ’s moti on for new tr ial under the a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Sal azar , 38 S.W .3d a t 148

. B. Discuss ion At t he moti on for n e w tr ia l hear ing , Pe re ztes ti fied th at he ente re d a p lea of g uil ty becau se his couns el tol d him that, if he w ent before the jud g e, he w oul d hav e a p oss ibi li ty of rec eiv ing deferred adj udi cat ion b y e n te ri ng a g uil ty pl ea. This al leg ed adv ic e from
c o u n s e l , h o w e v e r , i s a c o r r e c tr e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a " p o t e n t i a l " o u t c o m e o f a g u i l t y p l e a . W e canno t c oncl ude t hat t his tes ti mony su ppor ts Per ez 's co ntent ion thatco unsel told him he
wo uld r ecei v e deferred adj udi cat ion

. W hen as ked how deferred adj udi cat ion w as ex pla ine d to him, Pereztes ti fied "th at the jud g e w oul d impl ement t he defer re d adj udi cat ion if I w ent before him . Th at's w hat he w as try ing to tell m e . " This test imo ny, how ever, s up po rts o nl y

P erez ' s b el i ef o r

i nt er pret at i on , no t c ou ns el ' s a c tu al r ep r es en ta ti on t o hi m. Fi nal ly , Pe re ztes ti fied th at he and couns el did not dis cus s P er ez 's eli g ibi li ty for defer re d adj udi cat ion unti l the d ay of tr ial

. Ag ain , Perez 's di sc uss ion w it h c ounse l re g ardin g w hether17

Per ezw oul d be eli g ibl e for def er re d adjudi cat ion , reg ardle ss of w hen it occ ur re d, do es not consti tute a mi srepr esent ati on by co unsel and does not s uppor t Pe re z 's co ntent ion that
couns el defini ti v ely

told h im t hat h e wo uld receive deferred adj udi cat ion

. Nor do w e find in the record, an y

doc uments aug menti ng Perez 's tes ti mony thatr ev eal mis infor ma t ion and show i ts conv ey ance to P er ez . See Ex p arte Griffin , 679 S.W .2d 1 7- 18; Fim berg , 922 S.W .2d a t 207

. Indeed, co unsel tes ti fied th at he di d nottel l Per ezthat he w as eli g ibl e for

deferred adj udi cat ion

. This i s cons is tent w it h couns el' s tes ti mony that he bel iev ed, i ncor re ctl y , t hat Per ezw as not eli g ibl e for def er re d adj udi cat ion

. As pr ev iou sl y di sc uss ed, c ounse l tes ti fied th a t , b e fo r e t h e p l e a h e a r i n g , h e c o u n s e l e d P e r e z r e g a r d i n g t h e e n t r y o f h i s ple a and dis cus sed probati on w it h Perezand the pros ecut or 's of fice but did not a dv is e Perezthat he w oul d recei v e def er re d adjudi cat ion if he pleaded g uil ty

. Cou nsel tes ti fied th at de ferr ed adju d ica ti o n w as not d is cus sed unti l after the p lea w as entered, a nd i t w as Per ezw ho ask ed c ounse l to req uesti t. C ounse l sta ted t hat h e a sk e d t h e t ri al cour t for deferred adj udi cat ion bec ause Per ezi nst ru cte d hi m to d o s o. E xa m in ing the ent ire record, w e conclu de that Perez did not prove by a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce that couns el conv ey ed mi si nformati on to hi m. See E x parte Griffin , 679 S.W .2d at 17- 18; Fim berg , 922 S.W .2d at 207 . Nor did Perez esta blish that his g uil ty

pl ea w as act ual ly

i nduce d by

mis infor mati on. Se e Br own , 943 S.W .2d a t 42. If couns el did adv is e Perezr eg ardin g deferred adj udi cat ion , t he adv ic e w as onl y thatPerez
w as e l i g i b l e fo r d e fe r r e d a d j u d i c a t i o n i f h e p l e a d e d g u i l t y , w h i c h w o u l d n o tbe mis infor mati on. In fact , t he record rev eal s t hat c ounse l did not prov ide such adv ic e butthat Per ezas ked couns el to req uestdeferred adj udi cat ion . Becau se itis undis puted that theBecause, by t hi s t hi r d i ssue, Per ez i s al l egi ng a ddi t i onal i nstan c es o fi neff ect i v e assi st ance of 5 counsel , we wi l l app l y t he l aw and st andar d of r ev i ew set out i n t he f i r st i ssue. 18 tr ial co urt proper ly admoni shed Per ez , the burden shi fted to Per ez to s how thathe e ntered his p lea i nv olu ntar il y . See Lab ib , 239 S.W .2d a t 332

. Per ezdi d notmeet his burden. T h e re fo re , we c a n n o t c o n c lu d e t h a tP e re z' s p le a wa s n o tvo lu n t a ry a s a re s u lt o f in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel

. See i d. Non ethel ess , Pe re zal so arg ues by hi s s econd i ss ue th at, under the s econd prong o f Str ickl and , but for

counsel 's ineff ect iv e assi sta nce, the re sul t w oul d hav e been di ff er ent. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 4. Per ez 's co -d efendant, R amirez , ac cepted an off er of eig h t yea rs' c o nfinement. Pe re z , t oo, w as pr esent ed w it h thi s o ff er . Per ezas ser ts that beca use h e be liev ed th at he w ould rece ive deferred ad judicat ion, h e de clined th e of fer. T h u s , ita p p e a rs a s i f

P e re z is a rg u in g t h a th e wo u ld h a ve , b u tfo r c o u n s e l' s in e f fe c t ive assistan ce, ac c e p t e d t he p lea ba rg ain. W e f ind th is arg um ent unp ersua siv e, ho w ever, becau se Per eztur ned dow n the eig ht- y ear of fer pri or to the date of

tr ial , and , bas ed on our re v iew of the record, Pere zdid not disc uss def er re d adjudi cat ion w it h counsel unti l the d ay of trial. P e re z h as no t shown that th ere is a reason able proba bility , butfor coun sel's all eg ed er ro rs , i f any , t he resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. Therefore, P e r e zh a s n o te s t a b l i s h e d t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Str ickl and

. See i

d. Thus, the t ri al cour

t di d not abuse its disc re ti on in den y ing Perez ’s moti on for new tr ial on t he bas is tha t h is p le a w as not made kn ow ing ly and v olu ntar il y . See Webb , 232 S.W .3d a t 112

. W e ov er ru le Per ez ’s se cond is sue. IV. Zeal ous Repres entation By hi s thi rd iss ue, Per ezclai ms t hat c ounse l did not re pr esenthi m z eal ousl y , and the refore, th e trial court erred in de nying the m otion for new trial. 5Per ez al so con t ends t hat coun sel was i neff ect i v e and di d not z eal ousl y re pr esent hi m when he f ai l ed 6 t o f i l e, ear l i er i n t he p r oceedi ngs, a m ot i on t o sup pr ess com m ent s P ere z m ade t o t he a r r est i ng o ff i cer r egar di ng f or m er gan g i nv ol v em ent

. T he sa m e an al y si s app l i es t o t hi s cont ent i on. 19 A . Former Gang A

ffiliation Perez conte nds th at cou nsel w as inef fective and did not zealously re prese nt him
w hen, at the punis hment heari ng , he faile d to obj ectto q uest ion s a sk ed by the Stat e and to c los ing arg ument c omments made by the Stat e r e g ardin g Perez 's former g ang inv olv ement. I n all cri minal cases , how ev er , af ter a findi ng of

gui lt , both parti es mayoff er 6 any ev ide nce re lev ant t o s entenc ing

. Ri ver a v . St ate , 1 2 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 , 3 0 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2003, pet. re f'd). Thi s e v ide nce mayi ncl ude t he defendant' s p ri or cr imi nal re cord, charact er tes ti mony , re putat ion tes ti mony , or ev ide nce o f extr aneous c ri m e s o r b a d a c t s t h e d e fe n d a n th a s b e e n sh o wn , b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t , t o h a ve commi tted. Id. And, “a s a g eneral matter , t est imony r eg ardin g a de fendant's aff il iat ion w it h a gang may be rele v ant a nd adm issible at the p unish me nt pha se to sho w the de fend ant 's charact er ." Gar

ci a v . St ate , 239 S.W .3d 862, 866-6 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 7, pet. re f’d) , cer

t. denied , 1 2 9 S. Ct. 50 5 (20 0 8 ) (ci ti n g Beas ley v. Sta te , 90 2 S.W .2d 4 52, 456 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1995) ( en banc ); Ander son v. State , 90 1 S. W .2 d 94 6, 9 50 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1995) ( en banc ); Ho v. State , 171 S.W .3d 295, 305 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2005, pet. re f'd) ("E v en if appel lan t w as no lon g er aff il iat ed w it h the g ang at the t ime of the shoot ing , ev ide nce that he w as a g ang member i s rele van t—and thu s a dmis si ble at pun ishm ent —beca use it relate s to his ch a ra c t e r. " )). Perez does no t argue tha t this testim ony w as no t relevant and not ad missible at the pun ishm ent pha s e t o sh ow his ch a ra ct e r. W e ca n n o t co n clu d e t h a t co u n se l’s c o n d u ctd id n o t f a ll with in th e w id e ran ge of re asona ble professi onal assi sta nce; therefor e, Pere zhas not est abl is hed t he first prong o f Str ickl and bas ed on thi s a rg ument. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9.20 B. State's Lea ding Questions Perez next compla ins tha t coun sel w as inef fective becau se “[n]o obj e c t io ns w ere ma de to the obviously lead ing and suggestiv e question s asked by the State . Almost ev ery q uest ion w as sug g est iv e of the answ er and the w it ness mer ely had to s a y yes or

no. In many i n s t a n c e s , c o u n s e l n e v e r e v e n o bj e c t e d t o t h e h e a rs a y n a t u r e o f t h e a nsw er .” How ev er , t he record from t he motion for new tr ial hear ing co ntai ns no ev ide nce re lat ed to thi s c omplai nt. W it hout more in the record, w e may not spec ula te as to the reas ons behi nd
coun sel’s action s nor shou ld w e try to secon d guess his tactica l decisions which d o not fall bel ow the obj ect iv e s tandard of r eason abl eness . See Young , 991 S.W .2d a t 837 -3 8. And,
cons ide ri ng our hig hly

def er enti al st andard of rev iew , w e presume that couns el' s a cti ons fell w it hin the w ide rang e of r eason abl e and professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ickl and , 466 U. S. a t 689 ; Bone, 77 S .W .3d a t 833

. W e c oncl ude, therefore, that the first prong of Str ickl and has not b een met on th is bas is

. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. 689. C. Cross-Exam ination Per ezfurth er

co mplai ns that couns el’ s c ro ss -e x aminat ion of the S tate’ s w it ness es at t he puni shmenthear ing w as "lac kl ust er " and did nothi ng to ass is t Pe re zi n hi s d efense. He spec ific all y compl ain s of c ounse l’ s failu re to obj ect to tes ti mony and t o c ro ss -e x amine
w it ness es on te sti mony re g ardin g the car re ntal cont ra ct, Per ez ’s former g ang aff il iat ion , and t he open l ock

bl ade k nife. Per ezal so cont ends that couns el f a iled to at tempt to
re duce the i mpact of this tes ti mony w hen t he Stat e commented dur ing cl osi ng arg ument that Per ezw as a "bi g -t ime" dr ug di str ibu ter

. W e di sag re e. On c ro ss -e xam in a ti o n , Ca p t. Mat sis te st if ie d , in res p o n se to co u n se l's que st io n in g, tha t he foun d no thing in his research th at ind ica t e d P e re z wa s a mem ber of HPL. Th is supp orts the def ense position that P erez w as no t inv olved in g ang activi ty. On cross-21

ex aminat ion , D etec ti v e Kei l tes ti fied th at he had not t est ed th e k nife for fing er pr int s a nd had notobs er

v ed Perezw it h a k nife i n hi s p oss ess ion , s ug g e st in g thatPerezdi d not handl e the kn ife tha t ev eni ng and arg uabl y di d notow n the k nife. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Of f icer Cordova a gr eed thathe ha d ne gotiated w ith Ram irezand that , on th e night in q uest ion , he met Per ez for the firs t ti me w hen Rami re z took him to the car . This su ppor ts Per ez 's pos it ion thatR amirez , notPerez , di re cte d the dr ug transac ti on. In ad di ti on , du r i ng c l os i ng arg um en t, c ou ns el arg ue d th at th e tr i al c ou rt shou ld consid er tha t P e re z d id nothave a long cr imina l history and had not be en e ngaged in
cr imi nal ac ti v it y for sev er al y ears; that Per ezadmi tted his r espon si bil it y and mis tak e; t hat Rami re zran th e deal ; and that , al thoug h Perezhad fled from t he c ar , he did not tak e the
w eapon w it h him and after onl y a shor t chas e, did not re si st ar re st. C ounse l als o i nformed the court tha t Perez w as em ployed an d ha d a fam ily to suppo rt. Coun sel urged the court to c onsi der

deferred adj udi cat ion as a reason abl e al ter nati v e bas ed on all the facts of the
cas e. W e c a n n o tc o n c l u d e , u n d e r t h e fi rs tp ro n g o f Str

ickl and , tha t coun sel's performa nce
w as defici ent o n thi s b asi s. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9. D. Wit ness es Per ezfurth er

co mplai ns of couns el' s fail ur e to ask Perezaboutw it ness es or to subpo ena any witn ess es to prov ide tes ti mony co ncer nin g Perez ’s bac kg ro und and personal hi st o ry

i n s uppor

t of a l ess er

se ntenc e or

deferred adj udi cat ion

. W e hav e, how ev er , found not hin g i n the r ecord det ail ing the potent ial tes ti mony by any unc all ed
w it ness . See Her

nandez v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 53, 58 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86) (en ba nc) (holdin g tha t a failure to issue subp oen as bef ore the d ay of t he trial, even if it resulte d in22

w itnesse s not ap pea ring, does no t const itute in ef fective a ssistance of

coun sel w hen there is noth ing i n the appel lat e record det ail ing t h e pote nti al tes ti mony ). As ser ti ons of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el must be fir mly g ro unded in the record. Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 83 4 ( hol din g thattr ial co unsel onl y ca ll ing a s ing le w it ness and defendant atpuni shment phase di d notco nst it ute i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el w her e ev ide n ce of w hat addi ti onal w it ness es w oul d hav e tes ti fied to w as not i n reco rd ). Defense co unsel 's dec is ion to no t s ubmitev ide nce can be a strateg icchoic e rather than a sig n of in eff ect iv eness . See Ex parte Kunkle , 852 S.W .2d 4 99, 5 06 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ( en banc). I n thi s c ase, Per ezdoes not show

us wh a t e vidence s houl d hav e been pr esent ed; t hus, he h as not
overcome the pre sum ption thatcoun sel's cond uct f ell w ithin th e w ide range of reason able professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7; Her nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 58. P e r e zh a s n o ts a t i s fi e d t h e fi rs t p ro n g o f Str ickl and i n thi s i nst ance. See S tr ickl and , 466 U. S. a t 687

. From our r ev iew of the a bov e c omplai nts , w e cannot conc lud e tha t Pe re zr ecei v ed inef fective represen tatio n. T here fore, th e trial court did no t abu se its discre t io n when it deni ed Perez 's moti on for new tr ial

. See Webb , 232 S.W .3d at 112 . W e overrule Perez's thi rd i ss ue. IV. Conclusion W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ 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 er ed and filed thi s 1 6th d ay

of Jul y , 200 9.