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

NO. 03-03-00427- CR

Jo hn A nt honyK e r r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30219 11, H ONO RAB LE STANTON B . P EMB ERTON, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted J ohn Anthony Ker r of four counts of cre dit c ard fra ud. The district court a ssessed sente nce at twelve y ear s in prison. On appea l, K err complains that the cour t erre d by
e xclu din g wi tne sse s su a s po nte and by admitting evidenc e of an offe nse re ndere d extraneous when the State aba

ndoned a c ount of the i ndictment. He c ontends that the ver dict was not supported by leg all y an d f a c tu a ll y s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . H e a ls o c o mp la in s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l r e n d e r ed ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND Appellant wor

ked as a front-de sk clerk at a motel in Austin. His supervisor testified that the duti es of a front-de sk clerk inc luded taking cre dit card numbe rs from guests making
rese rvations and pa

y ing f or visits. Appellant’s brother ’s g irlfriend or common-law w ife, He ather2

Hucka by Ker r, worke d as a f

ront-desk c lerk at a motel acr oss the s t re et from the motel whe re appellant wor

ked. Ale x D a ma la s an d h is f a mi ly s ta y e d a t a p p e ll an t’ s mo te l M ar c h 1 4

- 1 6, 2002. Acc ording to the motel’s rec ords, appe llant took the reser vatio n the day

befor e the stay

beg an; computer r ecor ds show that, for no appar ent rea son, he re examined the entry shortly afte r making it. Da ma la s u se d a

c re dit c ard to p ay fo r h is f a mil y ’s sta

y . O n M arc h 2 0, 20 02 , Da ma la s’ s c re dit
c ard c omp any c on ta c te d him a

bo ut p ur c ha se s b e ingma de in Aus tin us inghis c re dit

c ard a c c ount; he lives in San Antonio a

nd was in H ouston at the time. The char g es included $6,741.30 fr om Roge r Be asley Mazda and $1,623.75 fr om Furniture Warehouse. T here later w as anothe r unauthorized char g e on Mar ch 22, 2002 for $647.34 at Quality

Appliance
. Ed Collie, Roger

Be asley M a zd a ’ s p a

r ts ma nag er, te stified that a man or dere d a motor and tra nsmissi on (“the motor”) ove r the telephone. The c aller trie d more than one cre dit card be fore what turne d out to be Damala s’s ca rd we nt throug h. Be cause the store had to or der the motor, the buy er c ould not take possession that day
. By the t ime the m otor came in, police suspec ted cr edit car d fra ud and ar rang ed to be pr esent when the motor was picke d up. Police arr ested Juli an He rbec k, a mecha nic, when he tried to pic k up the motor in a truck owned by appellant’ s brother, Milton Ker r; Her beck te stified that he nee ded the m o t o r fo r h i s own ca r. Milton Kerr ha d introduced him to a man, later

reve aled to be L ejea

n Roge rs, who orde red the motor t h ro u gh s o me conne ctions for a g ood deal. He rbec k was to pay Roge rs $500-$600 for

the motor. Sandra Johnson o f Fu rn i ture Ware house testified re g ardingthe two transa ctions at he r s tor e . O n M arc h 2 0, 2002 , sh e to ok a te le ph on e or de r f or a so fa , r e c lin e r a

nd lov e se a t. Although the caller identified himself as Robert J ohnson, he used D amalas’ s cre dit card. D amalas’ s3

car d w a s th e s e c o n d c ar d th e c a ll e r a tt e mp te d to u s e ; th e f ir s t w a s d e c li n e d
. When the man ide nti fy inghim se lf

a s Ro be rt John so n c a lle d tw o d ay s late r a nd or de re d mo re fu

rn iture (o ste ns ibl y for his colleg e-a g e child), Sandr a Johnson became suspicious bec ause the caller hesitated whe n asked a bout his address, then g ave a differ ent addr ess than bef ore. She ch ar ged the sale, but then called the cre dit c ard company , which repor ted that Damala s’s car d was being u s ed wi t h out
a uth or iza tio n. She vo ide d th e tr ans a c tio n. Whe n so me me n arr ive d to p ic k u p th e fu rn iture , s he tol d them she nee ded a sig nature from the c ardholde r.

Abig ail J ones fr om Quality Appliance testified that a man i d en t i fying himself a s Ste ph e n Smith or de re d a wa sh e r and dr y e r ov e r the te le ph on e . He pa id fo r it wi th D a ma la s’ s c re dit
c ard . Sh e ide nti fi e d a

pp e lla nt a s o ne of

tw o me n w ho c a me to p ic k u p th e a pp lia nc e s. L aw e n f o r c e me n t o f

f ic ia ls a ls o li n k e d

a p p e ll an t t o th e p u r c h a s e s . I nM ar c h 2 0 02, Secre t Service A g ent B laine B urre ll went to what he de scribed a s appellant’s r esidenc e in Austin and found applian c e b o xe s matc h in g th e ty p e o f a p p li a n c e s th a t h a d

b e e np u r c h a s e d

u s in g D a ma la s ’s
cre dit c ard. The residents appea red to be moving, and Bur rell lear ned that the lease expired Marc h 31, 2002; he also lea

rned that appellant and his h o u s em at es we re moving to Ba strop County . On July 25 , 2 00 2, Au sti n d e te c tiv e An dr e w Pe rk e l e xec ute d a s earch wa rr ant a t th e B a str op County home wher e appe llant was found a long w ith some of the merc h an d i s e fr o m these una uthorized purc ha se s. Pe rk e l te sti fi e d th a t a pp e lla nt a dmi tte d k

no wi ngof

the un a uth or ize d p ur c ha se s. There was testimony

reg ardingother una

uthorized c harg es made with cre dit cards of other for mer gue sts at the motel wher e appe llant worked a nd the motel wher e He ather Ker r worke d. Appliance s matching the desc ription of those purcha sed t hroug h these una uthorized transac tions
we re fo un d a t a

pp e lla nt’ s ho me , wh ic h he sh are d w ithMil ton Ke rr and He a the r K e rr . App e lla

nt a lso4

admit t ed t o p o lice that he kne w Rog ers, the ma n who orde red the motor for He rbec k. Police de te rm ine d th a t Ro g e rs wa s o ne of the me n w ho pic ke d u

p th e a pp lia nc e s.
DI SCU SSIO N Appellant ra ises four points of err or on appea l. He complains that the district court
e rr e d b y e xclu din g wi tne sse s su a s po nteand by

admitting evide nce of

an off ense r ender ed extraneous when the State abandone d a count of the indictment. He c ontends that the ver dict was not suppo rt ed b y l egally

and fa ctually

sufficie nt evidence . He a lso asserts that his trial counsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e.

B y his fi rs t po int

of e rr or , a pp e lla nt c omp la ins tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt su a s po nte excluded witnesses He ather Ker r and Milton Kerr be cause they wer e expected to invoke the ir rig ht
n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e t h e m s e l v e s . B o t h w i t n e s s e s w e r e s u b p o e n a e d an d p r e s e n t , b u t d i d n o t t e s t i f y. After placingHeather Ke rr unde r oath, the f ollowing e x chang e occ urre d among appellant’ s trial
a tto rn e y Th oma s Pr ic ha

rd , a ssi sta nt d istri c t atto rn e y

Duke Hi ldr e th, and

the c ourt :
THE COURT: Now, what’s y our re quest reg ardingHeather Ke rr? MR PR I CH ARD:
. . . s he te lls me that he r atto rn e y is K y le Col lin s— TH E CO UR T: Ye s. MR. PRI CHARD:

— an d I ’v e as ked her —she said that she ha d two numbers for him and Iasked he r to g ive him a ca ll so . . . TH E CO UR T: Wel l, a s a pr a c tic a l matte r, is sh e e ve n g oin g to be re a c he d unti l

t h e m o rn i n g? MR. PR I CHARD: I ’m not sure.5

THE COURT: I can’ t imag ine with all the people in the call. But, any how, we need—we nee d—she nee ds to call her attorney befor e she testifies if she ha s one. MR. PRI CH ARD: She do e s. * * * MR. HI L DRETH: J udg e, and I ’m sure the Court is aware on the information on her

stating her name, if she has char g es pending and it is v ery important that she be advised of her rig hts beca

use I don’t want to go thr oug h this hoop if she’s g oing to invoke the 5th. THE COURT: Well, I don’t have a comment on that. She has a lawy er, and she

oug ht to u s e h e r la

w y e r . B u t, in an y e v e n t, y o u ’ r e h ere by subpoena, a

nd y ou need to advise him y ou’ve been subpoena ed. And that Mr. Pricha

rd—if y our l awy er w ants to talk to Mr. Prichard—do you have a number he ca n [ c] all y ou on or something, Mr . Prichard? MR. PRI CH ARD: Wel l, I wa nt to mak e it c le ar to the Cou rt and to Mr . H ild

re th that Iknow that she has char g es pending , Iknow that she ha s an attorney . Ihave not attempted to talk to her.
The c ourt then advised H eathe r Ke rr to conta ct her attorney and to re tu rn t h e n ex t m o rning . A sim ila r, bu t mu c h b ri e fe r, e xch ang e oc c ur re d late r t hat sa me da y re g ard ing a

pp e lla nt’ s int e nt t o c a ll M il to nK e r

r . A p p e ll an t’ s a tt o r

n e y a dv is e d th e c o u r t t h a t h e in te nded to c a ll M il to nK e r r th e n e xt morning and said, “ I ’m assuming we ne ed to g et his lawy er.”

The ne x t morning, the court re marke d to Prichard that two lawy ers wer e looking f or him. Prichard stated that severa l witnesses had be en subpoena ed and w ere prese nt, that attorney Colli ns was pre sent, and that Pricha rd had spo k en wi t h appellant. Af ter the jury

enter ed the
c ourt ro om, the de fe ns e re ste d w ith ou t c a lli ngany wi tne sse s.6 I n order to pr eser ve err or conce rning the exclusion of evidence , a par ty must offer the evidenc e, have the cour

t exclude it, and inf

orm the court of the nature of the e vidence to be excluded. See Te x. R. E vid . 1 03 (a ); Te x. R. A pp. P. 33 .1 (a ); Lov e v . S

tate , 8 6 1 S. W. 2 d

8 9 9 , 9 0 0

- 0 1 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); se e als o H itt v . S tate , 53 S.W .3d 697, 708 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). Th e re c o r d

c o n t a i n s n o n e o f

t h e s e e v e n t s . A tm o s t , t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a tt h e c o u rts t r o ng ly
encour ag ed appe llant’s attorney not to call the witnesses without their attorney s prese nt. When the
a tto rn e y s a

pp are ntl y we re pr e se nt, a

pp e lla nt c ho se no t to c a ll the wi tne sse s. Ap pe lla nt d id n ot c a ll the witnesses, the court did not exclude them, and appe llant did not make an off er of proof of what their testimony

might have been. H e did not prese rve e rror . We overrule point of err or one. By his third point of error, a

ppellant complains t hat t he court abused its di scre tion by
a dmi tti ng e vid e nc e of an off e ns e that had fo rm e d the ba sis of an ab and on e d c ount o f t he ind ic tme nt. He c omp la ins that th e c ourt sh ou ld n ot h a ve a dmi tte d e vid e nc e of the un a uth or ize d us e of

a c re dit
car d other than D amalas’ s car d, even for the limit ed purpose of showing a common plan or scheme
. To pr e se rv e e rr or

re g ard ingthe a dmi ssi on

of e vid e nc e , a

de fe nd ant m

us t lo dg e a

tim e ly and sp e c if ic objection. Ma rti ne

z v . S tate , 22 S.W .3d 504, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Appellant did not object until so me ti me a f

te r th e a dmi s s io n o f e v id e n c e o f a p u r c h a s e o r d e r an d te s ti mo n y r e lati ng to an abandone d count in the indictment. This untim ely objection did not preser

ve er ror. See Norris v. Sta te , 9 02 S.W. 2d 42 8, 43 9, 44 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); se e als o H itt , 5 3 S. W. 3 d

a t 7 0 7
- 0 8
. We
overr ule point of err or three
. B y po int of e rr or

tw o, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to support the verdict. He complains that he had nothingto do with the purcha se of the7

motor and that no evide nce ide ntifies him as the person who order ed or picked up the furniture or appliance s. He c ontends t h at no evidenc e dire ctly links him to the char g es for which he w as
c on vic te d. He a sse rt s th a t he is l ink e d to the us e of Dam ala s’s cred it c ard on ly by vir tue of his
e mpl oy me nt at th e mot e l w he n the numbe r wa s a pp ro pr iate d, and

lin ke d to the purc ha se d g oo ds on ly by being prese nt at the home whe n police executed the sear ch wa rra nt. He ar g ues that the e vidence is too weak a

nd that there are rea sonable a lternative hy potheses for commission of t he offenses that do no t in vo lve him
.

Whe n b oth

the le g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e are c ha lle ng e d, we mus t fi rs t d et er m i n e whe ther the e vidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support the judgment. See Clewis v. Sta te , 922 S.W .2d 126, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). I n a leg al suffic iency revie w, we vie w all of the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t and then determine whether a r ational trier of fac t could have f

ound the essential e lements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt. See J ackson

v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U. S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); Es c am illa v . S tate , 143 S.W .3d 814, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we view all of t he evidence in a neutra l light, and we will set the ve rd ic t a sid e on ly

if the e vid e nc e is s o we ak that the ve rd ic t is c le arl y

wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust, or the contra

ry evidenc e is so strong that the standar d of proof bey ond a re as o n ab l e doubt could not have be en met. Se e Zun iga v . S tate , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484-85 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004). A p e rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of c re dit c ard a bu se if “ wi th int e nt t o o bta in a be ne fi t fra udulently , he pre sents or u s es a credit card or debit car d with knowledg e that: (A) the ca rd, whether or not e x pired, has not be en issued to him and is not used with the effe ctive conse nt of the
ca rd h o l d er

. . . . ” T ex . P e n . C o d e A n n . § 3 2
. 3 1 (a )( 1 ) ( W es tS u p p . 2 0 0 4 -0 5 ). T h e j u ry

ch ar ge8

inc lud e d a

n in str uc tio n o n th e law of pa

rt ie s, wh ic h ho lds a de fe nd ant c ri min a lly re sp on sib le fo r a c ts in which he is not the primary actor
. Se e id . § § 7 .0 1- .0 2 ( Wes t 20 03 ); Go ff v . S tate , 931 S.W .2d 537, 54 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Ri v e ra v . S tate , 9 90 S.W. 2d

88 2, 88 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 99 , p e t.
re f’ d) . T o e sta

bli shlia bil ity a s a pa rt y , th e State must s ho w that th e de fe nd ant h a d th e int e nt t o promote or a ss i s t the commission of the offe nse. Ri v e ra , 9 90 S.W. 2d a t 88 7. Th e e vid e nc e mus t ref lect that at the time of

the offense the parties acted togethe r each doing som e par t to ex ecute the common desig n, a desig n which ca n be shown by

direc t or circ umstantial evidence
. Id . at 887-88. Although the court of criminal appea ls ha s reje cted the rea sonable alternative hy pothesis test in lega l sufficie ncy

claims, the test ca

n be u s ed i n fac tual sufficie ncy claims. Ri c ha rd

so n v . S tate , 973 S.W .2d 384, 387 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pe t.); Ha rri s v . S tate , 1 3 3 S. W. 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 3

- 6 5 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 04 , p et. re f’ d) ; se e als o O ro na v . S tate , 8 3 6 S. W. 2 d

3 1 9 , 3 2 2 n . 2 ( T e x. Ap p.
— A u s t i n1 9 9 2 , n o p e t
. )
. C i r c u m s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , n e e d n o te xc l u d e a l l r e a s o n a

b le alternative hy

potheses. Ro be rts v . S

tate , 9 S.W .3d 460, 464 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). Viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the verdic t, the evidenc e shows that appe llant ha d a c c e ss t o D a ma la s’ s c re dit c ard by takin g the mot e l r e se rv a tio n; h e a lso ha d c on tin ue d a cce ss to the computer sy stem. Appellant wa s identified as one of the men w ho picked up a ppliances purcha sed with the cre dit c ard without Damalas’s c onsent. He kne w Rog ers, who or dere d the motor for He rbec k. Appellant wa s living at the h o u s e wh ere the items matching the desc ription of the
u n au t h o ri z edp u rc h as es we re d i s co v er edp u rs u an tt o a s ea rc h wa rr an t
. T h e c o m m o nt h re adt h ro u gh
a l l o f t h e o f

f e n s e s f o r w h i c h h e w a s c o n v i c t e d

i s t h e c r e d i tc ar d

nu mb e r h e w a s i np o s i t i o nt o s u

p p l y. He wa s c ha

rg e d a s a pa rt y to t he of fe ns e . L e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e su

pp or ts h is c on vic tio ns .9 Vi e we d w ith ou t th e pr ism of the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, t

he e vid e nc e is also fac tually sufficie nt to support his convictions for these offe nses. The a bsence of evide nce that
app e l l an t p e r s o n a l l y o r d e r e d t h e i t e m s d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g o f g u i l t b a s e d o n h i s r o l e in obta in in g D a ma la s ’ s c r e d it c ar d nu mb e r . I n ta k in g th e D a ma la s e s ’ mo te l r e s e r v a ti o n , appellant
rec orded the cre dit card numbe r used in the una uthorized transact i o ns. Although H eathe r Ke rr worke d acr oss the street a nd occa sionally

came acr oss the street to visit, there is no e vidence that she ob ta ine d the c re dit

c ard numbe r. Whe n p oli c e e xec ute d th e se arc h w arr ant at th e B a str op County house, appe llant told them he knew about the unauthorized purcha ses. Appellant is the only person who worked in the m otel wher e the Damala ses s tay ed who also lived in the hous e where many of the items were found. Althoug h J ones was somewhat equivocal i n her identification of appe llant as
on e of the pe rs on s w ho pic ke d u p f ur nit ur e , th e jur

y c ou ld a sse ss h e r ce rt a int

y . E ve n th e purc ha se of the motor—which w as not intended for t h e Ke rr h o usehold and ne ver le ft Roge r B easle y Mazda—was made possible by use of the c redit ca

rd num ber that circ umstantial evidenc e showe d that appellant obtaine d; the absenc e of evidenc e that appellant was more involved in the tra nsaction do e s n ot p re ve nt t

he jur y fr om i nf e rr ingthat a

pp e lla nt p art ic ipate d a s a

pa rt y by pr ov idi ngthe c re dit
car d used in this unauthorized transac tion in order to re ap a be nefit. We overr ule point two. By point of err or four , appellant c ontends that his counsel provided ine ffe ctive assistance . Appellant conte nds that counsel wa s ineffe ctive duringthe g uilt-inn o ce n ce pha se by failing to call witnesses other than Her beck, the mecha

nic who tried to pick up the motor from Rog er Be asley Mazda. He particular ly complains of t he failure to call Heather Ker r and Milton Ker

r. He also asser ts that the failure to call any witnesses at the punishment phase constituted defic ient10

perf o rm an ce . He a

rg ues that mitigation evidence might have reduc ed his twelve- y ear prison sentenc e toward the lower end of the two-to-twenty -y ear rang e. Se e W

igg ins v . S mi th , 539 U.S. 510, 534-38 (2003) (ef

fec tive counsel would have investig ate d a n d in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e o f murder er’ s bad childhood that might have persua ded jury to opt ag ainst death pe nalty ). To show ineffe ctive assistance , an appellant must satisfy a two-pa rt test. Strickland v. W ashington , 46 6 U. S. 6 68 , 6 87 (1 98 4) ; He rn an de z v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 53, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 86 ). Th e a

pp e lla nt m us t sh owtha

t c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e wa s d e fi c ie nt— i.e. , that counsel made
e rr or s so se ri ou s th a t c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e fe ll b e low

an o bje c tiv e sta

nd ard of re a so na ble ne ss. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687-88; Tho mp so n v . S tate , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The appellant a lso must s how that counsel’s de ficient pe rfor mance prejudice d the def

endant. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. T h i s p rejudice is demonstrated whe n the appe llant shows “a r easonable proba bility that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the proce eding would have be en diffe rent.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. Th e same sta

nd ard of re vie w a pp lie s to bo th t

he g uil t- inn oc e nc e and

the punis hme nt ph a se s o f t ri a l. He rn an de z v . S tate , 988 S.W .2d 770, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel’ s conduct fe ll within t he ra ng e of
rea sonable prof

essional assistance
. Bl e v ins v . S tate , 18 S.W .3d 266, 271 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000,
no pe t.) ; see Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. When the rec ord is silent as to possible trial strateg ies, the appellate court will not speculate as to why counsel a cted in a pa

rticular w ay . J

ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S.W. 2d 76 8, 77 1 (T e x. Cr im . Ap p. 1994 ); Ma y hu e v . S

tate , 9 6 9 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin

19 98 , n o p e t.)
. Re vie w of a tr ia l c ouns e l’ s pe rf or manc e mus t be hig hly

de fe re nti a l.11

Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. The a ppellant bea

rs the burde n of over coming the presumption of
rea sonable pe rfor

mance and of pr esentinga re cord de monstrating that counsel’s pe rfor mance was not based on sound t ri al strateg y . See Strick land , 4 66 U. S. at 68 9; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. Al tho ug h a

sin g le e rr or

or omi ssi on by c ouns e l c ou ld c on sti tut e ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e , a n a pp e llate court looks to the “totality of the re prese ntation” in assessing counsel’s e ffe ctiveness. Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 3. Couns e l’ s e ff e c tiv e ne ss i s a sse sse d f

ro m th e pe rs pe c tiv e a t tr ia l, n ot i n h ind sig ht. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689; Mayhue , 9 69 S.W. 2d a t 51 0. Th e burd e n o f s ho wi ngine ff e c tiv e ne ss is difficult if there is no evidentiar y hear ing on the issue of counsel’s eff ectivene ss. Bo nev . S

tate , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

Th e re c or d d oe s not sho w that a pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e wa s d e fi c ie nt. Th e re c or d sh ow s that tr ia l c ouns e l c a pa bly pr e se nte d pr e tr ia l mot ion s, su bp oe na e d w itn e sse s, c ro ssexamined witnesses, and objec ted to the admis sion of evidence. We have only the trial re cord be fore us. As set out above in the discussion of point of err or one, appellant’ s counsel subpoena ed He ather Ker r and Milton Ker

r, but contac ted their c ounsel bec ause of the ex pectation that they would invoke thei r r ig h t n o t t o in c r im in a te th e ms e lv e s . A p p ar e n tl y a f te r a d is c u s s io nw it

h a p p e ll an t, c o unsel
announce d that the defe nse rested at g uilt-innocence without c alling either w itness. There is nothing in the rec ord to show what the K err s’ testimony might have been. L ikewise, the r ecor d is silent reg ardingwhat evide nce a ppellant thinks would have mitigated his punishment. Even if the f

ailures to ca ll witnesses at both phases we re so de fi ci en t as to rende r
c ouns e l’ s a ssi sta

nc e ine ff e c tiv e , a pp e lla nt h a s f a ile d to sh owthat th e de fi c ie nc y ha rm e d h im. With ou t kn ow ingwh a t te sti mony wa s no t pr ov ide d a t the g uil t- inn oc e nc e ph a se , w e c ann ot a sse ss12

whether it would have chang ed the jury ’s verdic t. Wit hout know ing what mitigation evide nce mig ht exis t, w e cannot speculate on its potential effe ct at punishment on the district court, whic h assessed sentenc e. This ca se stands in stark c ontrast to W iggins , in which the re cord on the petition for the
wr it o f h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f w a s r e ple te wi th e vid e nc e of the mur de re r’ s dim ini sh e d me nta l c a pa c ity and his childhood of privation, abuse, ra pe, and home lessness that was not fully inves tigated or introduced by his trial counsel. See W iggins , 539 U.S. at 524-26, 534-38. The re cord he re doe s not sim ila rl y sh owa re a so na ble pr ob abi li ty th at, bu t f or c ouns e l’ s a lle g e d e rr or s, the re su lts a t g uil tinnocenc e or punishment would have been dif fer ent. We overr

ule point four.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled appe llant’s complaints about the admission of evidenc e, the
su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , a

nd the e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f t

ri a l c ouns e l, w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Mar ch 10, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh