### NUM BER 13-08- 0002 2-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
ST EVEN C UR TIS LE WIS, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 16 3r d D is tr ic t C o u rt of Oran ge C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , 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 Ga rza App ellant , Steven Curtis L ewi s, w as convicted for t he of fense of agg rav ate d robb ery and w as sent enced to e igh te e n y ears’ i mpri sonment

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 2 9

. 0 3 (a ) ( V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). L e wis n o w a p p e a ls , c o n t e n d in g t h a t h is c o u n s e l wa s in e f fe c t ive fo r fa i l i n g t o p r e s e n t s u ffi c i e n t mi t i g a t i o n e v i d e n c e a n d fo r p r o d u c i n g n o w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i fy att he s en te nc i ng p ha s e of t he t r i al

. W e affi r m.T he f i r st coun t of t he i ndi ct m ent al l eged t hat Lewi s: 1

. . . whi l e i n t he co ur se of com m i t t i ng t hef t and wi t h i nt ent t o ob t ai n an d m ai nt ai n con t r ol of pr oper t y of

R onal d M i l l s, wi t hout eff ect i v e con sent of t he sai d R onal d M i l l s, and wi t h t he i nt ent t o depr i v e t hat sai d R onal d M i l l s ofsai d pr oper t y , di d t hen and t her e by usi ng a nd e xhi bi t i ng a d e a d ly w e a p o n , t o w it: a k n if e , t h a t in th e m a n n e r o fits u s e a n d in te n d e d u s e is c a p a b le o f c a u s i n g s e rio u s b o d i l y in ju ry a n d d e a th , i n te n ti o n a l l y a n d k n o w i n g l y c a u s e b o d i l y i n ju ry t o R onal d M i l l s by st abbi ng t he sa i d Ronal d M i l l s wi t h sai d kni f e. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 29. 03( a) ( 2) ( Ver non 2003)

. T he se cond count al l eged t hat Lewi s:

. . . w h il e i n th e c o u rs e o f c o m m i tti n g th e ft o f p ro p e rty o f R o n a l d M i l l s , a n d w i th i n te n t t o obt ai n an d m ai nt ai n cont r ol ofsai d pr oper t y , [ di d] i nt ent i onal l y and k nowi ngl y cause ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y t o Ronal d M i l l s by st abbi ng t he sa i d Ronal d M i l l s wi t h a k ni f e. S e e i d

. § 2 9.03 (a)(1) ( V ern on 20 03 ). 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On J anuar

y 25, 2007, an Orang e C ounty g ra nd jur y i ndi cte d Lew is on tw o c ounts
o f a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry. See i d. On Sept em ber 19 , 200 7, Le wis se nt a request to his 1 attor ney as ki n g that s he r emov e hersel f f ro m the cas e, i n par t bec ause he bel iev ed s he
w as a “p lea barg ain lov er [and ] nota t ra il [s ic ] at tor ney .” Su bseq uentl y , hi s a ttor ney fil ed a moti on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel

. At a hear ing on S eptember 20, 2007, Lew is ex pr ess ed his di sc o n tent w it h hi s a ppoi nted attor ney and ask ed th e c our

t t o be ass ig ned new
re pr esent ati on. The cour t den ied co unsel ’s moti on to w it hdr aw
. On September 24, 2007, the t ri al c o u rt h e l d a p l e a h e a r i n g a t w h i c h L e w i s p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o c o u n t o n e o f t he ind ic tment. The c our

t al so or der ed a pr e- sent ence inv est ig ati on r epor t t o be pr epar ed. The sent enci ng hear ing took pl ace on Oc tober

18, 2007, at w hic h poi nt t he tr ial court pe rmitte d Le w is to ma ke a state me nt requesting le nien cy
. In respo nse to the St ate ’s
arg ument t hat L ew is ’s cr imi nal hi sto ry be c onsi dered i n det er mini ng hi s p uni shment, L e wis’s a tt o rn e y u rge d th a t his a ct io n s w e re n o t pre m e d it a te d a n d a sk e d th a t t h e j u d ge tak e i nto a cc ount Lew is ’s g ra ndmother ’s ill health and his desire to hav e a l ife w it h her after his release f rom th e pe niten tiary . Th e trial co u rt , t aking note of the pre -sente nce3

inves t ig a t ion repo rt, the a rg um ent s of coun sel, an d Le w is’s statem ent , sent ence d Le w is to ei g hteen y ears’ co nfinement in the I nst it u ti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal Justice . Th e judgme nt and senten ce w ere entered on Octobe r 24, 20 07. Lew is now appe als. II. D I S CUS S I ON By h is sole i ss ue, L ew is co ntends thathi s S ixth A mendment r ig ht t o c ounse l w as
v iol ated b e ca u se his co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for faili ng to pr esentsu ff ic ien t mi ti g ati ng
ev ide nce and for pr oduci ng no w it ness es to t e st ify at the s entenc ing hear ing

. See U .S. C ON ST . amend. VI. T o esta blish inef

fective assistance of

coun sel, Lewis mu st show ( 1) his atto rney’s represe nta tion f ell below an obj e c t ive s tan dard of reason able ness, and (2) there is a
reaso nab le proba bility

that , but for his atto rney’s errors, t he result of the pro ceed ing w ould hav e been different. See S tr ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 , 684 (1984 ); Her nandez
v. State , 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ; Jay nes v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.)

. W hether thi s t esthas been met is to be j udg ed
on appeal by the total it y of repr esent ati on, not by any i sol ated act s o r omis si ons. Jay nes , S.W .3d 8 39 at851. The burden res ts on th e appel lan t t o prov e i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of
couns el by

a preponderance of the e vidence. Thom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9) ( cit in g Can non v . St ate , 668 S.W .2d 401, 403 (Tex

. Crim . A p p. 1984) ). O ur

r ev iew of couns el’s r e p re se n tation is hi g hly deferen ti al, and w e w il l find inef fective assistance only if the ap pellan t overcome s the stron g pr e s u m ption that his
couns el’ s c onduc t f ell w it hin the w ide r ang e of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See Str ic kl and , 466 U.S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851. M or eov er , t he ac ts or omi ss ion sLewi s st at es t hat hi s coun sel “ shoul d ha v e put w i t nesses on t he st and t hat f ur t her expl ai ned t he 2 hi st or y of

M r
. Lewi s and how i t had fo r m ed t he i ndi v i dual he i s t oday

. She coul d hav e f ound f or m er t eacher s, r el at i v es, nei ghbor s, or f r i ends t hat coul d com pl et e t hi s pi ct ur e. ” Lewi s does not , howev er , speci f y what any such t est i m ony woul d ha v e r ev eal ed, nor doe s he expl ai n ho w any such t est i m ony m i ght hav e l ed t o a l esser sent ence. 4 that form the basi s o f appel lan t’ s c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce must be s uppor ted b y the
re cord. Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 814 ; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851 . A silent record w hich pr ov ide s n o ex pla nati on for couns e l’s act ion s u sual ly w il l not o v er come t he s trong pr esumpt ion of re asona ble as si sta nce. Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4. L e wis cla im s t h a t h is c o u n se l o f fe re d i n su f

f ici e n t m it iga ti n g evid e n ce at se n te n cin g. T he o nly evidence b ro u gh t o n his beha lf w as his own self-serving state me nt; L ewi s cont ends that a r eason abl y pr udent attor ney

w oul d hav e done more than merel y hav e the def end ant ask the co urt for lenien cy
. Spe cif ically , Lewis asserts th at his cou nsel sho uld hav e putw it ness es on the sta nd to ex pla in his back g ro und and w hy he shoul d be g ra nted len ien cy
. H o wev er , Lew is has not ind ic ated w hat, if any , w it ness tes ti mony or othe r miti g ati ng ev ide nce coul d hav e been produce d tha t mi g ht ha v e al ter ed the outc ome of the sent enci ng hear ing

. Lew is ass erts that the tr ial co ur t w as “n ot g iv en anythi ng to w or k w it h” 2 at trial and argues that if a dequa te mitigation e v iden ce had b een p rov ided , the trial court mayhav e had re ason to or der a les ser sent ence. How ev er , cont ra ry to Lew is ’s as ser

ti on, the rec ord s ho w s t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt di d ha v e th e op po rtu ni ty t o r ev i ew

a p r e- s ent ence investig ation report an d Lewis’s plea for lenien cy in dete rmining his sente nce. Lew is baldly asserts th at “[i]t can never be said to be prude nt t ri a l s t rategy to prese nt such little mitigation e v iden ce.” B ut Lewis ha s sh own no reason able proba bility that , but for coun sel’s all eg edl y defic ien t per

formance, the re sul t o f the sent enci ng phas e w oul d hav e been different. See S tr

ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 4; Her nandez , 726 S. W .2 d at 57; Jay nes , 2165

S.W .3d a t 851

. Mo re ov er , t he record r ev eal s n o r eason ing for h is co unsel ’s ac ti ons re g ar din g the all eg ed er ro rs
. Lew is , therefore, has faile d to meet his burden in re butti ng the strong pr esumpt ion of re asona ble as si sta nce, see Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851 , and he h as faile d to es tabl is h tha t c ounse l’ s repre se n ta ti on fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of
re asona ble ness
. See Lock ett v. State , 874 S. W .2d 8 10, 8 17 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, no wri t ) ( e xp la in in g t h a tt h e co u rt wil l o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s cl a im if n o t h in g i n t h e re c o rd sh o ws app ellant ’s counse l’s performa nce f ell below an object iv e stan dard of reason able ness)

. W e co n c lu d e t h a tL e wis h a s n o tsh o wn t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l o f fe re d in e f

fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel

. Acc or din g ly , hi s s ole i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, 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 t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.