Exc ep t f ort he v i ct i m ’ s na m e, e ac h co un t wa s i de nt i ca l and al l eg ed t ha t app el l an t “ on or abo ut M AY 1 23 , 20 05 , i n N ue c es C ou nty , T ex as , di d t he n an d t he re w i t h t he i nten t t o arou s e an d g rat i fy t he se x ua l de s i re o fth e d e f e n d a n t, in te n tio n a lly o r k n o w in g ly e x p o s e th e d e f e n d a n t’s G E N IT A L S k n o w in g th a t [ v ic tim ], a c h ild y ou ng er t ha n 1 7 y ea rs a nd no t t he sp ou s e o f t he de fen da nt, w as pres en t

. . . . ” (em ph as i s i n o ri gi na l ). 

### NUM BER 13-08- 537- 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
OWEN T HOMA S H A RR IS, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 4th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Ow en Thomas Har ri s, w as ind ic ted for three c ounts of ind ecency w it h a chi ld by ex posure, a t hird- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (2 )( A) , ( d) 12

(V er n o n S u p p
. 2 0 0 9 )

. H e p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a l l t h r e e c o u n t s w i t h o u ta re c o mm e n ded pun ishm ent

. Af

ter a pu nishm enthea ring, the trial court sent ence d him to ten y ears’ imp risonm entfor e ach coun t, w ith the se nte nces for co unt s 1 a nd 2 runn ing consecu tiv ely and the sen ten ce for coun t 3 runn ing concurrent ly wit h c o u n t s 1 and 2. In three issues, appel lan t c omplai ns that: ( 1) t h e e vidence i s i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t hi s g uil ty

pl ea; ( 2) doubl e j eopardy bar re d mult ipl e prosec uti ons and pun is hments for t he s ame offense; and ( 3) h e r ec ei v ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of t r i al c ou ns el

. W e affi r m. I. S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In his f irst issue , app ellantco nte nds tha t the ev iden ce is insuf f icient to supp ort his g uil ty pl ea bec ause the S tate did not int ro duce the j udi ci al confess ion and the w ri tten sti pul ati on as re q uired by arti cl e 1.15 of t he Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 1.1 5 (Verno n 20 05). A . A pp licab le L aw T he Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n do es no t require the Sta te t o p re sentev iden ce in suppo rtof

a g uil ty plea in Tex as cour

ts. Me nefee v. State , 28 7 S. W .3 d 9, 1 3 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2009)

. Ar

ti cl e 1.1 5 of th e c o d e of cr imi nal procedu re co nst it utes “ an addi ti onal procedu ra l safeg uard req uired by the Stat e of Tex as but n ot by federal co nst it uti onal l aw .” E x p a rte W il lia ms , 703 S.W .2d 674 , 678 (Te x . Crim. App

. 198 6). In T exas, “[n]o trial court is auth or iz ed to render a c onv ic ti on i n a fel ony ca se , cons is tent w it h Ar ti cl e 1.1 5, ba sed upo n a plea of

g uilty ‘w ith o u t s u f

f icie nt evidence to supp ort the same .’” Me nefee , 287 S.W .3d a t 13; see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 1.15. W it h respec t t o the form of ev ide nce re q uired by arti cl e 1.15, the cour t of cr imi nal appeal s h as ex pla ine d: Ev ide nce off ered i n s upport o f a gu iltypl ea may

tak e many

forms. TheFi r st , t he St at e cal l s ourat t ent i on t o t he f ol l owi ng co l l oquy bet ween appe l l an t and hi s def ense 2 c o u n s e l: C o u n s e l: [D ]o yo u u n d e r s ta n d w h y yo u ’r e h e a r to d a y? A pp el l an t : Ye s , si r. C ounsel : W hat do y ou t hi nk oft he cr i m e t hat y ou j ust pl ed g ui l t y t o? Appel l ant : I ’ m v er y asha m ed.

* * * * C ounsel : I don’ t bel i ev e t hey ’ r e pr esent t oday i n t he cour t r oom , bu t what woul d y ou

hav e t o say t o t he p ar ent s of t he v i ct i m s of

t he o ff ense? Ap p e l l a n t : I wo u l d t e l l t h e m t h a t I ’ m h e r e t o d a y p r o c e e d i n g i n t he m anner t hat I am

be c au s e I w an t t o d o t hi ng s di fferen t l y . I w an t t o t ak e res po ns i bi l i t y for— C o u n s e l: O k a y. Appel l ant : — - f or t hi ngs. N ex t , t he S t ate po i nts t o t he fol l ow i ng co l l oq uy be t w ee n a pp el l an t an d t he pros ec utor:

Pr osecut or : H ow— woul d y ou co nsi der t hi s a secr et i v e cr i m e? 3 sta tute ex pr ess ly

prov ide s t hat t he defendant mayconsentto the p ro ff er of ev ide nce in tes ti monial or doc umentar

y form, or

to an oral or

w ri tten stipula tion o f

w hatthe evidence against him w ou ld b e , withoutnece ssarily admit ti ng to it s v eraci ty or ac curacy ; and su ch a proff er or st ip u lat ion of evidence wi ll suf

f ice to sup port th e guilty plea so lon g as it e mb races every cons ti tuentel ement of t he charg ed off ense. Al ter nati v ely , our ca se law

has re cog niz ed th at t he defendant mayente r a sw or n w ri tten sta tement, or may tes ti fy under

oath i n open cour

t, spec ific all y

admi tti ng his cu lpa bil ity or at lea st ack now led g ing generall y that the alleg ati ons ag ain st him ar e i n fact tr ue and c or re ct; and ag ain , s o l ong as su ch a judi ci al confess ion co v ers a ll of the ele ments of the c harg ed offense, i t w il l suffice t o s uppor t t he g uil ty

pl ea. Me nefee , 287 S.W .3d at 13 (foot not e om itted ). B. A nal ysis At t he pl ea hear ing , th e St ate d id not i ntroduce ei ther a w ri tten sti pul ati on of
ev ide nce or a w ri tten jud ic ial confess ion

. The Stat e cont ends that appel lan t’ s t est imony add uced at the pun ishm enthea ring inde pen den tly serv ed to provi de e v iden tiarysupp ort for hi s g uil ty

pl ea. Taki ng i nto a cc ount all of appel lan t’ s t est imony at the p uni shment 2Appel l ant : Secr et i v e? N o. I m ean, any body can l ook up m y r ecor d. I m ean, i t ’ s— Pr osecut or : N o, but I m ean t he t y pe of cr i m e wher e y ou’ r e not a nam e. O bv i ousl y , y our

n a m e ’s n o t o n y o u r c h e s t. Y o u ju s t e x p o s e y o u rs e l f a n d th e n ta k e o ff

. Is t hat not secr et i v e? App el l an t : I do n’ t se e ho w. I ’ m go i ng t o f or ev er we ar a sc ar l et l et t er on m y c he st n ow
.

* * * * P ro s e c u to r: H o w w o u l d y o u fe e l i f s o m e b o d y w a l k e d u p a n d d i d th a t— w h a t y o u d i d to

t h o s e t h r e e c h i l d r e n i n 2 0 0 5 , i fy o u d i d t h a t

— s o m e b o d y d i d t h a t t o y o ur c h ild r e n , yo u r 1 1
- ye a r - o ld g ir l, h o w w o u ld yo u f e e l? * * * * A p p e lla n t: W e ll, I m ys e lf a m h e r e p le a d in g g u ilty, a n d if it h a p p e n e d to m y c h ild , I w o u ld

c al l the p ol i ce an d I woul d ha v e hi m ar r est ed b ecause I ’ m a hum an a nd I m ake m i st akes. So I w oul d do— t ake t he pr oper pr ocedur e an d I woul d— I woul d j ust do t hat

. Because i t ’ s not m y — i t ’ s not m y posi t i on t o j udge. * * * * Pr osecut or : I m ean, shoul d a— shoul d a ni ne- y ear - ol d gi r l and t wo si x- y ear - ol d gi r l s who

wer e t he v i ct i m s— or t wo ni ne- y ear - ol ds and one si x- y ear - ol d who wer e t he v i ct i m s of

y our cr i m e, shou l d t hey be f or ced t o l ook at a g row n m an m as t urb ati ng i n a n o pe n c ar? A p p e l l a n t: W e l l , I w a s th e re
. It w a s n ’ t— i t w a s n ’ t n e c e s s a ril y m y — I d i d n ’ t g o th e re w i th

th a t i n m i n d o r a n y th i n g
. P ros ec utor: Y o u d i d i t tho ug h. S ho ul d t he y h ave to l oo k ? S ho ul d t he y b e ex po s e d to

t hat ; y es orno? A p p e l l a n t: N o , t h e y s h o u l d n ’ t. T h e c r im e o fin d e c e n c y w ith a c h ild b y e x p o s u r e c o n s is ts o fth e f o llo w in g e le m e n ts : 1 ) th a t t h e c h ild 3 was y ounge r t han sev ent een y ear s and not m ar r i ed t o t he a ccused; 2) t hat a chi l d was p r esent ; 3) t hat t he accused had t he i nt ent t o ar ouse or gr at i f y som eone’ s sexua l desi r e; 4) t hat t he accused k new a chi l d was p re s e n t; a n d 5 ) th a t t h e a c c u s e d e x p o s e d h i s a n u s o r g e n i ta l s
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 1. 11 ( a) ( 2) ( A) (V ern on S up p. 20 09 ); Ya n e s v . S ta te , 14 9 S

. W

. 3d 70 8, 71 0 (T ex
. A pp
. –A us t i n 2 00 4, pe t

. ref’ d). 4 hea ring, appellan t did no t specif ically adm it his culpab ili ty

o r a t least a cknowledge g ene rally that the a ll eg ati ons ag ain st him ar e i n fact tr ue and cor re ct. H e al so did not ack now led g e, ind ependentof his g uil ty pl ea, t hat h e c ommitt ed al l of the el ements of th e ch arg ed off ense. See Menefee , 287 S.W .3d a t 13; see a lsoT EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (2 )( A) (stating the e le m e n t s of indece ncy w ith a child by ex posu re). Accordingly , app ellant ’s 3S e e M e n e fe e v . S ta te , 28 7 S

. W

. 3d 9, 13 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 09 ). 4 S e e a ls o E m m e rt v . S ta te , N o. 07- 08- 0456- C R , 2009 W L 58236 13, at * 3 ( T ex. App. –Am ar i l l o Feb. 5 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 , n o p e t. h .) ( m e m . o p ., n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ) ( s ta tin g th a t “ [e ]v e n ifth e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in f ai l i ng t o r ecei v e ev i dence suff i ci ent t o sub st ant i at e [ Em m er t ’ s] pl ea under ar t i cl e 1. 15, such er r or woul d be subj ect t o ha r m l ess er r or ana l y si s und er R ul e 44

. 2( b) ofthe T ex as R ul es of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e. ” ) ( ci t i ng M enef ee , 2 8 7 S .W .3 d a t 1 8 ). 5 tes ti mony

does not suppo rtthe g uil ty pl ea, and therefore, the c onv ic ti on c onst it uted tr ial

4
er ro r. See Menefee , 287 S.W .3d a t 14 (s tati ng that“ [a] conv ic ti on rendered w it hout suf f icient evidence to supp ort a guilty plea con stitute s trial error.”). 3. H arm “‘[I]t is the respo nsibility of the review ing co u rt , once it conclude s there was error, to de term ine w het her the error af fecte d the judgmen t.’” Id . at19 n .48 ( q uot in g Ford v. State , 73 S.W .3d 9 23, 9 25 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ). I nsuffici ent e v ide nce to s ubst anti ate app ellant ’s g uilty plea und er article 1.15 is subject to a h armle ss-error analysi s und er rule 44.2( b) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re
. Id . at 18

. “P ursua nt to Te x as Rule 5 of Appe llate Proce dure 44.2 (b) , any non-con stitutio nal error tha t doe s not af fect ap pellan t’s subst ant ial rig hts m ust be disregarded. ” Haley v. State , 17 3 S. W .3 d 51 0, 5 18 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.2( b) ). “ A s ubst anti al ri g ht is af fected w hen the er ro r had a subs tanti al and inj ur iou s eff ect or influ ence in deter mini ng the [fact fin der ’s ] v erdic t.” Id .; Mo ra les

v. Sta te , 32 S.W .3d 8 62, 8 67 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. “A cr imi nal co nv ic ti on shoul d notbe o v ertur ned for non- cons ti tuti onal er ro r if the appel lat e cour t, after ex amini ng the record as w hol e [s ic ], has fair as surance that the e rror di d noti nfluenc e the j ur y , or had but a slight ef

fect.” Johns on v

. St ate , 967 S.W .2d 410 , 417 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98). In Haley , t he c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s s tated : In asse ssing the likelihood thatthe [f act f inde r’s] decision w as ad v ersely aff ect ed by

the er ro r, a n a p pel lat e c our t s houl d c onsi der

ev er ythi ng i n the record, inclu ding any testimo ny or physical ev iden ce ad mitt ed f o r t he [f act6

finder ’s ] c onsi derati on, the nature of the ev ide nce suppo rt ing the v erdic t, the charact er

of the a ll eg ed er ro r and how i t mi g ht be co nsi dered i n c onnec ti on w it h oth er

ev ide nce in the c ase. The rev iew ing co urt may al so cons ide r the jur y i nst ru cti ons, the Stat e’s theo ry and any

defensi v e the or ies , c los ing argume nts, voir dire, an d w het her the State emp hasized the error. Haley , 173 S.W .3d a t 518 -1 9. Here, ap pel lan t w as charg ed w it h three c ounts of ind ecency w it h a c hild by
ex posure. He pl eaded g uil ty to the three counts in open cour t. In connec ti on w it h ent er ing his pl ea, a ppel lan t s ig ned a documententi tl ed, “ Defendant ’s Sta tement Un d e rstand ing Admoni shment s,” upon w hic h he pla ced his init ial s i n the sp ace that pr ecede d the phrase, “I ente r mypl ea of g uil ty bec ause I am i n fact g uil ty of sai d offense. ” App e lla n t is not
arg uin g thathe i s innoc ent of the three counts of indece ncy

w it h a chi ld by

ex posure or t hat he w as so m e h o w

tr ic ked int o pl eadi ng g uil ty to an offense thatnev er oc cur re d. Furthe rmore , app ellantis not arguing that inde pen den t evi den ce of his g uilt doe s not exist
or that ev ide nce does not suppor t his punish ment. Butfor t he fail ur e of the prosec utor to int ro duce eit her a w ri tten sti pul ati on of ev ide nce or a w ri tten jud ic ial co nfessi on, a ppel lan t
w oul d nothav e before thi s C our t t he arg ument he now co ntends s h o u ld resul t i n an acq uit tal

. After ex amini ng th e r e co rd as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng appel lan t’ s t est imony at the pun ishm enthea ring, w e ha v e a fair a ssuran ce tha t the la ck of substa ntiat ing ev iden ce did notinf luen ce the trial court’s v erdict, or ha d bu t a slig ht ef fect. Acco rdingly , the error did nothave a s u b stan tial and injurious ef fect or inf luen ce in det ermin ing the trial court’s
v erdic t, and t herefore, did not aff ectappell ant’ s subs tanti al r ig hts

. W e hol d tha t app ell ant
w as not h ar med by

the er ro r. I ss ue one is ov er ru led

.

II. D OU B LE J E OP A RDY In hi s s econd iss ue, appel lan t contend s t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n i ts conv ic ti on and subs eq uent puni shmentfor t hr ee separate count s of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d by ex posure,T he Doubl e Jeo par dy C l ause oft he F i f t h A m endm ent pr ov i des t hat no per son shal l “ be su bj ect f or 6 t he s am e off en se t o be t wi ce p ut i n j eo pa r dy o fl i f e orl i m b. ” U. S. C ON ST
. a m en d. V. 7 al l a r i s i ng from t he s am e c r i mi na l e pi s od e, w he n th e offen s e i s a no n- v i c ti m- ba s ed c r i me for w hich do uble jeopa rdybars mu ltiple prose cution s. T he Dou ble Jeo pard y

Clause of

the Fif th Am end me nt “protects an accuse d against 6
a s econd prosec uti on for the s ame offense for w hic h he has been prev iou sl y ac q uit ted o r pr ev iou sl y

co nv ic ted. Ital so protec ts him from bei ng puni shed m o re t h a n onc e for the
sam e of fense in a singl e prose cution .” Gonz ale s v . St ate , N o
. P D
- 0 3 3 7
- 0 9 , 2 0 1 0 WL 625056, at *4 ( Tex . C ri m. App. F eb. 24, 2 010)

. “S ameness ” in the l atter co ntext i s a matte r for leg is lat iv e i ntent

. Id

. “‘W ith respe ct to cum ulative se nte nces im pose d in a single trial, the D oubl e J eopard y Cl ause does no more tha n prev ent t he s entenc ing co urt from prescribing g reate r puni s h m e nt th an th e legislature inte nde d.” Id . (qu o ti n g Missouri v. Hun ter , 459 U.S. 359 , 366 (1983 )). “[T] he prot ecti on a g ai ns t double jeo pard y is i nap plicable w here sepa rate an d distinct of fense s occur during the sam e transa ction. ” Spr adl ing v. Sta te , 77 3 S .W .2 d 553, 556 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1989) ; Sanchez v. Sta te , 269 S.W .3d 169, 170 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2008, pet . ref ’d). W hen “there are two v ict im s , a se para te vi ctim for each of fense , the acts, thoug h oc cur ri ng at the same t ime and pl ace, co nst it ute s eparate o ff enses i nv olv ing separate i ss ues of law , and se parate p ro sec uti ons ar e not b a rre d b y former j eopardy .” Spr adl ing , 773 S.W .2d at 556. Appel lan t arg ues that alt houg h more tha n one chi ld may b e p re s e n twh e n a n a c c u s e d e n ga ge s in t h e co n d u c tt h a tt h e in d e c e n c y-wi t h -a -c h il d -b yexposure sta tute proh ibits, only one of fense occurs because “neith er the child’s aw aren ess of the per petrator ’s presenc e and/o r th e w it ness ing of the p er petrators [ si c] anus or any part of the perso n’s genitalia is a required e lem entof the cha rg e.” How ever, the Doub le8

Jeop ardy C lause “does no t restricta legi slature f rom ca rv ing as man y of fense s as it choos es from one transac ti on s o l ong as eac h offense r eq uires pro of of a fact w hic h the oth er doe s not. ” Phi

ll ips v. Sta te , 787 S.W .2d 3 91, 3 94 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) ( int er nal quotat ion m arks om itted ). A case th at aid s us in our ana ly sis of a ppe llant’s argume nt is Baggett v . St ate , 860 S.W .2d 2 07 (T e x. App.–Hous ton [ 1stD is t.] 1993, no p et.)

. In t hat c ase, Grady Bag g ett, at t he same ti me and pla ce, approache d four peopl e—tw o c hil dr en and tw o adul ts— and
e x p o s e d h i s g e n i t a l s t o a l l of them. Id . at208. After he p lea ded g uil ty

to one c ount of ind ecentex posure w it h respec t t o one of the adul ts, he w as ind ic ted for tw o c ounts of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d by

ex posure—one count for each chil d. Id

. Bag g ett filed a pre- tr ial moti on to di smi ss the ind ic tment on the g ro und that becau se he had al re ady pl eaded g uil ty to on e c ount of indec ent e x posure and, bec ause doubl e j eopardy bar re d prosec uti on for both count s o f indec ency w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. Id

. The tr ial courtdenied t he moti on to di smi ss , and after ple adi ng nol o cont endere to bo th c ounts of ind ecency w it h a c hil d by
ex posure, B ag g ett appeal ed th e tw o c onv ic ti ons for ind e ce n cy w it h a c hil d by ex posure, arg uin g thathi s c onv ictio n for one countof ind ecentex posure precl uded s ubseq uent p ro sec uti on for tw o c ounts of ind ecency w it h a c hil d by

ex posure. Id . In rejecting this
arg ument, the a ppel lat e c our t s tated : The Stat e w oul d hav e been jus ti fie d i n i ndi cti ng , prosec uti ng , and puni shi ng [Ba g g ett] for four ac ts of i ndece nt ex posure or tw o ac ts of indec ent exposure an d tw o acts of indece ncy w ith a c h ild . Th e esse nce o f this mult ipl e prosec u ti o n i s t hat e ach off ense re q uired proof of a fact tha t t he o t h e rs d id n o t : th e id e n t it y o f t h e vic t im

. Be c a u s e e a c h vic t im in t h e two conv ic ti ons w as different, each conv ic ti on w as based on a s eparate o ff ense. Therefor e, [Bag g ett’ s] ri g ht to be protec ted ag ain st mult ipl e prosec uti ons and puni shment s for

the same o ff ense w as not v iol ated. Id . at209.9

A person commi ts the o ff ense of indec ency w it h a c hil d by

ex posure i f the person,
w it h i ntentto arouse or

g ra ti fy the sex ual desire of any person, ex poses the person’ s a nus or any p a rt o f

t h e person ’s g enita ls, knowi ng that th e child is pr esent

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 21. 11(a )(2)(A) (emp hasis ad ded ). Thu s, the statu te provides a distinct of fen s e a gain st each child presen t by a single act of ex posu re. Proof

of an iden tif iable child as an additio nal eleme nt of the statu te i s required, an d thu s an of fense against each chi ld pr esentw oul d c onst it ute a se parate c ri me. See B aggett , 860 S.W .2d at 209 . Th us, doubl e j eopardy

does not bar m u lt ip le punish ments or prosec uti ons for th e s ame ac t of in d e c e n c y wit h a ch il d b y e xp o s u re wh e n t h re e d if fe re n tch il d re n a re in vo lve d

. I s s u e two is ov er ru led

. III . I N EFFEC TI VE A SS I ST A NCE OF T RI A L C OU N SEL I n his third issue, ap pellan t cont end s thathe w as de nied his ri ght to ef fective
ass is tanc e of tr ial co unsel

. See U .S. C ON ST . amend. VI. Sp eci fical ly , he st ates thathe “w as deni ed ef

fecti v e assi sta nce of couns el and w as g iv en er ro neous adv ic e from c ounse l that mayhav e i nduce d or ca used him to pl ea g uil ty i nst ead of proceed ing to tr ial .” A . St and ard o f Rev iew W hen a d efend ante nte rs his or h er p lea upo n cou nsel’s ad v ice and subse quently challen ges the voluntarine ss of the plea o n the b asis of in ef fective a ssistance of

coun sel, the v olu ntar ine ss of th e p le a d e p ends on “ (1 ) w hether co unsel ’s adv ic e w as w it hin the range of comp ete nce d em and ed o f atto rneys i n criminal cases and if not , (2) w het her the re is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor c ounse l’ s e rrors, he w oul d not hav e pl eaded g uil ty and w ould have insiste d on going to trial.” Ex par te Mor ro w , 9 5 2 S

. W

. 2 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Hill v. Lockh art , 474 U. S. 5 2 , 5 8 (1985)) ; For cey v. Sta te , 265 S.W .3d 9 2 1 , 9 2 5 ( Te x . A p p
. –A u s t i n 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t

. )

. U n d e r t h e fi rs t p a rt o f t h e t est , a10

defendant must ov er come a stro ng presu mpti on that t ri al couns el w as compet ent. Mitich
v. State , 4 7 S. W .3 d 13 7 , 1 4 1 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Chri st i 2 0 0 1 , no pe t. ) (ci ti n g Thom pson
v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ). U nder the sec ond par t of t he te st,
w e c onsi der

both the ci rc umstan ces su rrounding the ple a and the g ra v ity of the mis re present ati on as itper tai ned t o the defendant’ s p lea dete rmi nati on. Id . (c it in g Ex par te Mo ody , 991 S.W .2d 856 , 858 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99)). B. A nal ysis 1. Adv ice With Respec t To Community Superv ision During the pun ishm ent hea ring, w hile app ellant w as on the w itness stand , def ense coun sel asked him, “Now, y ou u nde rstand beca use this is a 3G of fense y ou’re no t eligi ble for probati on from t he j udg e?”

. In res ponse , appell ant sai d, “I understa nd. I un dersta nd.” Dur ing cl osi ng arg ument, defense c ounse l arg ued to the tr ial cour t, “I w is h I coul d ask

the Cou rtfor p ro bati on on thi s cas e but I can’ t. Not to saythe Cou rtw oul d ev en c onsi der i t, but I w is h I coul d as k y ou for it .” Ba sed upon these r emark s, appel lan t c ontends thattr ial
couns el w ro ng ly

adv is ed bot h hi m and t he tr ial co urt t hat t he c ri me of inde cency w it h a chi ld by ex posure w as a “ 3G offense,” maki ng hi m in eli g ibl e for communi ty su per v is ion

. Article 42. 12, Section 3(a) of the T exas Code o f

C ri m in al Proced ure broa dly author iz es a tr ial j u d ge, a fte r a g uil ty pl ea, t o pl ace an el ig ibl e defendant on c ommunit y super v is ion w henev er

he o r she deems it “i n the best int er est of j ust ic e, the publ ic , and t he defendant” to do s o. Ive y v . St ate , 277 S.W .3d 4 3, 45 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009) ; see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.12, § 3(a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)

. Ar ti cl e 42. 12, s ect ion 3g li mits the off enses for w hic h the tr ial courtcan order community

su per v is ion

. Sect ion 3g (a ) sta tes that“ [t] he prov is ion s o f Secti on 3 of t h is a rt icle do n ot ap ply : (1 ) to a defendant adju dged guilty

of a n of fense u nde r: . . . (c) Section 21.1 1(a)(1), Pen al Code (Indece ncySect i on 2 1. 11 o ft he p enal code pr ov i des, i n r el ev ant par t , t hat : “ ( a) A per son com m i t s an off ense 7 i f , wi t h a chi l d y ounge r t han 17 y ear s ofage, w het her t he chi l d i s oft he sam e or opposi t e sex, t he per son: ( 1) en ga ge s i n s ex ua l co ntac t w i t h t he ch i l d o r ca us es t he ch i l d t o e ng ag e i n s ex ua l c on t ac t ; . . . . ” T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 2 1.11 (a)(1) ( V ern on S up p. 20 09 ).

See St r i ckl and v. W ashi

ngt on , 46 6 U

. S

. 66 8 (19 84 ). 8 11 w ith a child); . . . .” Id

. § 3g(a)(1)( c). Article 42.1 2, Se ction 3 g( a)(1)(c) specif ically refers to ind ecen cy w ith a child by cont act ; the statu te does not refer to inde cency w ith a child 7 by ex posure
. T h us, tr ial co unsel i ncor re ctl y adv is ed appe ll ant a nd th e tr ial co urt t hat appel lan t w as ine ligibl e for communi ty su per v is ion

. How ev er , t he record does not show that eve n i f tri al couns el had c or re ctl y adv is ed appe ll ant c oncer nin g hi s e li g ibi li ty for
com mu nity supe rv ision, t h e re i s a reason able proba bility that , butfor coun sel’s error, appel lan t w oul d nothav e pl eaded g uil ty and w oul d h a ve in sis te d on g oin g to tr ial

. “A ny al l eg at i on of i ne ffec ti v en es s mu s t be fi r ml y fou nd ed i n th e r ec ord an d th e r ec ord m ust af f irmatively

de mo nstrat e the alleged inef fectiveness.” Mc Far

lan d v . St ate , 928 S.W .2d 482 , 500 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96). W it h respec t t o tr ial co unsel ’s i ncor re ct s ta tement to t he tr ial co urt c oncer nin g app ellant ’s elig ibility

for com mu nity supe rv ision, th e granting of comm unity supervisi on is
a priv ilege , no t a r i g ht , an d th e de c i s i on t o g r an t c om mu ni ty s up er v i s i on i s w ho l ly dis creti onar

y . Speth v. State , 6 S.W .3d 530, 533 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1999)

. The r ecord does notshow tha t had t rial counse l correctly state d to th e trial court tha t app ellantw as eligible for c ommunit y

su per v is ing , t he tr ial co urt w oul d hav e pla ced him on c ommunit y super v is ion

. Thus, appel lan t has fail ed to sh ow thatbut for c ounse l’ s e rror , the re sul t of the p ro ceedi ng w oul d hav e been different. See Sm it h v . St ate , 2 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 3 , 3 4 0 (T e x. C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r ej u d i c e p ro n g o f Str ickl and , a de fendant 8 “mus t s how

there i s a reason able p ro b a bil ity that , butfor h is co unsel ’s unprofessi onal errors, t he result of

t he proce edin g w ould h ave b een dif feren t.”) (i nte rnal quotat ion m arks12

om itted ). Beca use w e are l imite d to the record before us, the record m u s t su ppo rt appel lan t’ s a ss erti ons. Mc Far lan d , 928 S.W .2d a t 500

. 2. Fail ure to Adv ise A ppella nt aboutDouble Jeopardy App ellantconte nds th at he received inef fective assistan ce of

trial counse l becau se “coun sel failed to advise [him] th at a do uble jeopa rdyclaim ma y ex ist to bar the multip le prosec uti ons for th e one si ng le cr ime. ” H ow ev er , t h e r e cord does not demonst ra te t hat
coun sel failed to advise appe llant ab outthis aspe ct of dou ble jeo pard y . B ecau se w e are li mite d to the re cord before us, the re cord mustsu ppor t app ell ant’ s a ss erti ons. Mc Far lan d , 928 S. W .2d a t 500

. 3. Fail ure to Obj ect or File Pre -trial Motion App ellantconte nds that he received inef fective assistance of

trial counse l becau se couns el 1) did not file a pre- tr ial moti on reg ardin g a po ss ibl e doubl e- jeo pardy ch all eng e, or 2) did notorally

objecteithe r before or during the p lea he aring regardi n g a po ssible dou ble jeo pard y

challen ge. “Th e const itution al rig ht to coun sel doe s not m ean errorless
couns el w hose compet ency or ac curacy

of re pr esent ati on i s t o be jud g ed by hi ndsi g ht.” Inghamv. Sta te , 679 S.W .2d 503, 509 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1984)

. W e hav e al re ady hel d tha t there w as no double jeo pardy vi ola ti on—s o there w as no er ro r in faili ng to re q uesta r uli ng on doub le jeo pardy

or fail ing to adv is e the defendant of that p oss ibi li ty

. Tri al couns el may hav e c oncl uded t hat doubl e jeopardy w as not v iol ated, or

tr ial co unsel may

hav e dec ide d not t o obj ector

fil e a p re -t ri al moti on for re asons of tr ial st ra teg y . If couns el' s reason s for his co nductdo n ot ap pear in the record and there i s “ at l eastthe poss ibi li ty ” that the cond uct cou ld h a ve b een g roun ded in legi tima te trial strategy, w e w ill def er to cou nsel's deci si ons and den y

reli ef on an i neff ect iv e- ass ist a n ce clai m on di re ct appeal

. Garza v. State, 213 S.W .3d 3 38, 3 48 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)

. W e hol d tha t appell ant fai led to re but13

the p re sumpti on th at c ounse l act ed reason abl y . See S chean ette v. State , 144 S.W .3d 503 , 509 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 4) (stating tha t “[a]p pellat e rev iew of def ens e co u n sel’s
re pr esent ati on is hig hly deferen ti al and presumes thatco unsel ’s ac ti ons fell w it hin the w ide
ra ng e of r eason abl e and professi onal as si sta nce” ). I ss ue th re e i s o v er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv er ed and filed the 15th day of Apr il , 201 0.