### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-01-00238-CR

44444444444

4444 Buster Sar gent, A

ppel lan t v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0995885, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 A jury found appel

la n t B uster Sargent guil

ty on three counts of aggravated sexual as sa ult of a child and fo ur co unt s o f indecenc y with a c hi l d by contact. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021 (West Supp. 2002). The jury assess ed punishment at t hre e life sent ence s for t he aggravated

sexu al assa ult offense s, a nd fo ur t went y-year sent ence s for t he in decency wit h a child by contact offenses. In thi

rteen points of error, appell ant contends that he recei

ved i nef fecti ve ass is tance of cou n se l , that th

e tr i al cou rt e rr ed in int ro duc ing video t ape d st at ement s made by the a ppe llant dur inga no n-c ust od ial inter view, and t hat t he evide nce w as fac t ually insuffi cient t o s upp or t t he jury’s verdict. We wil

l overrule these contentions and aff irm the convictions. Ineffective Assistance of Couns el Appe llantcl ai

ms that he recei

ved i nef fecti ve ass is tance of co un se l

on two a l ter n ate gro unds: (1) due to fatigue, defense counsel was construct iv ely absent from the proceedings, and (2)2

taken asa w hol e, def en se cou ns el ’s ac ti ons f el l be l owthe m i ni m um sta nd ard f orpr of es si on al con du ct. To pr ev ai l on an i n ef f ec ti v e a ss i sta n ce of cou n se l cl ai m , a pp el l an t m us t sh ow th at counsel

ma de seri ous erro rs and that t hose errors c aus ed s erious harm . Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 690 (19 84) ; Hernan dez v. Sta te , 7 26 S .W. 2d 5 3, 57 ( Te x. C rim. Ap p. 198 6) . I n s ome egregi ous circumstances, for exam

ple when counsel has b een com

ple tely deni ed or is ab sent or unconsci

ous dur ingcri ti cal porti ons of t he t rial, t he ap pellat e co ur t may pres ume t hat bot h pr ong s o f the t est have been met. United Sta tes v. C

ronic , 466 U.S. 648, 65 9 (198 4); see also Burdine v. Johnson , 262 F.3d 336, 34 6 (5th C i

r. 2001 ). Ap pe ll ant argues that defense counsel ’s com pla in ts of fatigue durin

g trial create a pre su m ption that d efens e counsel ’s perf ormance prejudi ced appel la nt’s rights. Defen

se counsel fi le d a motion f or co ntin uance b ased on hi

s f atigue an d in abi li ty to prepare t he cas e b ef ore tri al and
r ep ea t ed ly

st at ed t o t he co ur t t ha t he wa s fa t igu ed du r ing t r ial. However, no case law su ppo rt s t he prop osi ti on tha t de f en se cou ns el ’s mere as serti ons

of f ati gu e a resuf f i ci en t to rai se a p res um ption of prejudi ce and i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . Cf. Burdine , 262 F.3d at 346 (ho lding t hat defend ant had be en prej udiced w

here record suggested t hat defe nse couns el

had actually been asleepdur ing po rt ions of

trial ). B ec au se

n othi n g i n th e record sugge sts that defens e counsel ever sl ept or was abse nt from the t rial at any tim e, we o verrule app ell

ant’s co nt ent ion t hat defens e co unse l shou ld be presum ed t o ha ve bee n ineffect ive. We no w co nsider t he balance of appellan t’s in eff ective assi stance o f co un se l cla im.

Appe llantasserts that he r ecei ved ine ff ective assi stance of counsel because: (1) defense cou nsel’s cross -e xaminatio n of Ca rly Moo re , a n inter view sp ecialist wo rk ing for child pr ot ect ive3

services, el ic ited dam

agi ng he arsay

evi dence; (2) defense counsel f ai l ed to ob j ec t to statements m

ade by Moore t hat bols

tered t he State’s case; and (3) defens e co unse l im pr op er ly chose t o c ro ss- examine Dr. Beth Nauert, a phy si ci an wi th sp eci al ex perti se i n chi l d ab use cas es. To prove

the f i rs t pron g of an i n ef f ec ti v e a ss i sta n ce cl ai m , w e m us t de ci de wh eth er th e r ec ord

estab l i sh es th at c ounse l

f ai l ed to provide reas onab l y ef f ecti ve ass i stan ce. Strickland, 46 6 U. S. at 687 -88 ; Hernandez , 926 S.W.2d at 55; Wil kerson v. State , 726 S. W.2d 542, 54 8 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1986 ). The appellant m ust dem on str ate that co un se l’s pe r fo r man ce wa s u nr ea so na ble un de rt he pr ev ailing pr o fes sio na l no r ms and that the cha

l l enged a cti on wa s n

ot sound tri

al strategy. Strickland, 46 6 U. S. at 688 ; Staff ord v. Stat e, 813 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim . App. 1991). Appella nt must pro ve i

nef fecti ve ass is tance by a preponderance o f the e vi den ce. Moore v. St

ate , 694 S.W .2d 528 , 531 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1985 ). We do n ot eval ua te the e f f ec ti ve ne ss of cou nsel i n hi ndsight, but from cou nsel’s pe r sp ec t ive at t r ial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ; Ex parte K unkle , 852 S.W.2d 499, 505 (Tex. Crim . App. 199 3) . We assess t he total

i ty of the rep res en tation, rath

er th an i sol ate d a ctsoromi

ssi ons. Garcia

v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862 , 88 0 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 94) ; Ma yhue v. State , 9 69 S .W. 2d 5 03, 510 (T ex. App.—A usti n 19 98, n o pet.). The ap pe llat e c o ur t pr es ume s t ha t de fen se co un se l ha s p r o vid ed r ea so na ble professi onal assi stance, an d t he de fen da nt mus t pr es en t pr o o f t o o ve r co me t his presum pti on. Jackson
v. State , 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim . App. 1994). We will no t ge ne r all y s pecul ate about cou nsel’s tria l strategy. Jackson , 87 7 S. W.2d at 771 ; Delrio v. State , 840 S.W.2d 443 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 2) . An a ppe llant, how ever , may re but t he pr esu mpt ion o f effect iveness bypr ovidi ng a record from whi ch we m ay determ ine tha t t rial co unse l’s per for mance w as no t base d o n so und4

st r at eg y. Jackson , 877 S. W.2d at 771 -72 ; Bohnet v. Stat e , 938 S.W.2d53 2, 53 6 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1997, p et. ref

’d.). On di rect ex am i na tion , the State

el i ci ted f rom Moore a d es cri

ption of her inter viewing techni ques and the ci

rcumstances of h

er in terview with the vi

ctim. Def ensecou n se l on l y ob j ec ted to t he Stat e aski

ng whether

the vi ctim was abl e to describe the posi

tion of h er body h ad been i n. L ater, dur ingdefense cou nsel’s

cr os s-e xaminatio n, Moo re made severa l stat ements rega rding the victim’s descr ipti on of even

ts. These hearsay

statements relay

ed the vi ctim ’s descri

ption of the ab

use, including ident ify

ingwhi ch parts of appel

la nt’s body had touched

her, report in

g that appell

ant had inse r t ed his pri

v ate pa rt i n to h er s, an

d s tati n g th at sh e c al l ed appe l l an t’s pri v ate pa rt a “di ng-a-lin g” and a “thi ng.” Appe llant wo uld have us decide that counsel’ s el ic iti ng these statements consti tut ed ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l.

Defens e counsel’s conduct during Moo re’s test im ony refl ects a choice t o use Moo re’s sta tem en ts as the bas is

for i ntroducing the v

ide ot ape of Moore’s i

nterviewwit h t he vic t im. O n vo ir dire, ou t side t he presence of the jury, Moore r eveal ed that the victim had m ade all egations of abuse agai nst several

men other th an

appe l l an t. Defe nse couns el

stated to the trial

court that he i

ntended to offer t he video t ape of t he vict im to demo nst ra t e t hat t he victim had accus ed several

ot her m en of se xu ally ab us i n g h er . D ef ense cou n se l h ope d to e sta

b l i sh th at, al though the victim

had probabl

y b een abused, she h ad

n ot b een ab us ed b y appe l l an t. Al th oug h de f ense cou n se l ’s ef f ortsto intr od uce t he vi deotape of Moore’s in

terview wi

th the victim

were unsucce ssf

ul, the record shows that def ens e counsel ev en t ua lly

succeeded i

n putting ev

ide nce b efore the j ury that

Ba st r o p C o un t y wa s, at t he t ime of t r ial, inve st iga t ing alle ga t io ns o f ab us e ma de by t he sa me v ict im ag ain st a d if fer en t in div idu al.5

Giv en that the deci si on to al low Moore to ma ke som e h ea rs ay sta tem en ts a nd to al l owth e S tate

to ask que st ions a bou t inter viewing t echniqu e wa s t ake n in the cont ext o f att empting to offer Moo re’s vi deo taped in

terview of

the vi ctim in to evi dence, we can

not say that def

ense couns el ’s strateg i c dec isions re gar ding Mo or e’s t est imony wer e o ut side t he sc o pe o f r ea so na ble professi onal assi stance. Appe llantcl ai

ms that de f en se cou ns el sh oul d n ot have c ro ss- examined N aue rt . T he courtruled that Nauer t co uld not discuss any al le gations of

abuse m ade agai nst i ndi vi dual s other than appell ant, except in

expl ain in g a medi cal di agnosis. The State qualifi ed Nauert as an exp er t for t he purpo se of

di sc us si n g th e p h y si ca l man i f estat io ns o f penetrat ion i n y oung chil dren. On cro ssexaminat ion, de f

en se cou ns el as ke d N au ert to d

i scus s h er exa m i na ti on of t he vi cti

m , and Nauert descri bed the vi ctim ’s condi

tion as “ normal .” On

r ed ire ct , t he St at e e licit ed fr o m Na ue r t t ha t it is not unusual for victi ms of ab use to have n

ormal exami

nations. Appell

ant cont ends that, because defense counsel elicited informat ion r ega rd ingt he exam in ation an d fai le d to have expert testim

ony prepared to counter Nauert’s assessm ent of the vi

ctim ’s condi

tion, i t was in appropriate t o qu esti on

Na uert. Howev er, pr oof

of pen etrati on wa s cru ci

al to th e S tate ’s

ca se , a n d d ef ense cou n se l wa s a b l e to dem on str ate th at N au er

t’ s t es t im ony di

d not pro ve that the vi

ctim had b een ass aul

ted. Indeed, defen se counsel

em phasi zed i n cl osin g argumen

t t hat Nau er t ’s t est imony pro ved no t hingre gar ding t he accusations against

ap pe l l an t. W e c an not say t hat t he de cision t o c ro ss- examine Na uer t re gar ding t he phy si cal exam in ation wasun r ea so na ble und er preva i l i ng profe ssi

onal norm s. See Strickland

, 466 U.S . at 688 ; Staf

ford , 813 S.W.2d at 506. In t hi s c ase, we hav

e no record from wh

ic h to accurately

dis cern counsel ’s trial st ra t egy bec aus e no testi

mony wasoff ered to su pport the i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e c l ai m i n th e m oti on6

f ornew trial procee di ngs . See Jackson , 7 68 S .W. 2d a t 772 (Ba ird, J., co ncur ring) . We not e t hat t he record suggests that each strategic deci si on chal le nged b y the appella nt appears to have ha

d a reas onab l e j usti f

i cation. We ove

rrule poi nts of error one through f our. Appellant’s Videotaped Interview

Appe llantnext co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion i nadmit t ing statem en ts t ake n fro m the vid eo t ape of a non- cus t od ial inter view bet wee n t he po lice and t he appe l l an t. Appel la nt als o argues that t he de fense c ou nsel’s failure t o k eep t he video t ape ou t of t he record and sub sequent deci sion t o int ro duc e t he video t ape d st at ement s co nst itu t ed ineffect ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l.

The victim

was appel

la nt’s granddaugh

ter. Once app ellant le arned that there was an i nv es ti ga ti on into hi s gr and dau ght er ’s allega t ions, he we nt t o t he po lice and c ons ent ed t o a noncustodial inter view, which wa s video t ape d. Dur ingt he in terview, he revealed that during the 1980’s, he ha d s ex ua lly abu se d h is own daugh ters. Appel

la nt apparently

hoped that, by b ei

ng can did a bout t he ea rl i er i n ci den ts, h e c oul

d sh ow th at h e w as n ot li ke l y to ha ve ab us ed t he vic t im. De sc r ibing his th oug h ts re gar ding t he ear lier incident and hi s subsequent behavi or, appell ant stat ed, “To be honest wi th you, I do ha

ve though ts al l the ti me ab out li

ttle g i rl s.”He con

ti n ue d, “ Those th oug h ts c om e i n to my he ad, and I pr ay t o Go d I wo n’t do it . ” A pp ella nt ex pla ine d t ha t he t r ied t o av o id b ein g in sit u at ions where

he m i gh t be tem pte d to m ol es t youn

g gi rl s, s ay i ng , “ I s ay , Bu ster, y

ou kn ow y ou can’t pu t yo ur se lf in sit ua t io ns w it h o t he rkid s. ” T o emp ha siz e h is e ffo r t s no t t o pu t himse lf in a bad si tuation, appell

ant stated, “I don’t spend the ni ght with f rien ds that have ch

il dren.”7 Defens e co un se l co nsis t en t ly obj ec ted to the i ntr oduc ti on of t hese st at ement s as be ing prej udi ci al . SeeTex. R. Evi d. 4 03. To prevai l on th i s iss ue , ap pe l l an t woul d have to s how

t hat t he cou rt ’s ad m i ss i on of the se l ec ted sta tem en ts ta ke n f rom the vi de otap e w asan

ab us e of di scre t ion. Dubose v. State , 91 5 S .W .2d 49 3, 4 97 -9 8 ( Te x . C ri

m . A pp . 19 96 ). I t i s n

ot eno ugh f

or u s to dis agree with the t rial court ’s det er minatio n—t o be re ver sed , t he ho lding must be o ut side t he “zo ne of r ea so na ble dis agreem

ent.” Montgomer

y v. State , 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (op. on reh ’g). The Sta

te off ered th e ex cerpte d statem

en ts to dem onstra te m otive. SeeTe x. R. Evi d. 404 (b) . T he t rial co ur t car efully parse d t he st at eme nt s a nd rule d t ha t ea ch o f t he m wa s s uffic ien t ly pr oba t ivet o o ut weigh a ny prej udici al

ef f ects. Thes e state

men ts a read m i ss i on s of a p ar ty de f en da n t. See Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2)(A). T hey tend to demonstrate motive b ecause they in di cat e t ha t app ellant wa s c o nst an t ly t hink ing ab o ut t he po ss ibilit y t ha t he migh t se xu ally abuse young girls. We n ote t hat , a s o ffered by the S t at e, none of t he st at ement s indicat es t hat t he de fendant t oo k pa rt in any extraneous bad acts; t hey only indicat e ap pellant ’s ad mitt ed t hou ght s and moti va ti ons at the ti me of t he invest igat ion. We wi

ll not intrude on the trial

court ’s di scretion to all

ow into evi

dence recorded sta tem en ts ma de by a defe ndan t and off ered to demonstrate motive. We reject appell

ant’s cl ai m that the evi den ce was i m properl y adm i tted and ove

rrule poi nts f i ve through ten. Wh en it bec am e cl ear that certai

n porti ons of appe l l an t’s v i deotaped statem en t were go ingto b e i

n trod uc ed i n to ev i den ce , de f

ense cou n se l pr eem pti ve l y of fered the en

tire vi deotape. Appe llantcl ai

ms that t hi s deci si on constituted in eff ective assi stance of couns el because it reveal ed to the jury

that appell

ant had com

mi tt ed earlie r acts of chi

ld a buse.8 Ap pellant wo uld have us s eco nd- gue ss d efense co unse l’s dec ision t o int ro duc e t he en tire vi de otap e, b as ed

on appell ant’s content ion that by sh owing the entire vi

deo t o t he j ury defen

se counsel did m ore harm than

good. Howe ve r, to pre va i l , ap pe l l an t m us t de mons

trate tha t, f rom defense counsel ’s perspecti

ve at the tim

e of trial, the decis ion to in tro duce t he vi

deotape fell outsi de of reas onab l e prof

ess i onal stan dards . Ex parte K

unkle , 852 S.W.2d at 505. Defense counsel had a choi ce between

al l owi n g th e S tate to prod uc e thes e d am

ag i ng sta tem en ts on cros s- exam

i na ti on or intr od ucing t he st at ement s himself i n t he best po ssible light. In o ppo sing admi ssion of the excerpts, defense counsel argued that the excerpts were m is le adi ng wh en t ake n ou t of c ont ext . I nt ro duc ing t he entire tape was an att empt by defense counsel

to mi tigate t he damagi

ng eff ect o f the excerpts. Cho os ingto in

tro duce the enti

re videotape was a strat egi c deci si on and the record bef ore us provides no in dic a tion that it was profes si onal ly unacceptabl

e. Wi thout the record t hat would have b een devel oped in a hear ing o n a mot ion fo r ne w t rial, a ppe llantca nn ot ove rcom e the s trong pr

esum ption that def en se c ouns el ’sactions were pr ofe ssi onal l y acc eptab l e. See Ja ckson , 7 68 S.W.2d at 772 (Bai rd, J., co ncur ring) . We re ject app ellant’ s ineffect iveassi stance cl ai ms regardin g the vi deotaped in terview of

the appella

nt and overrul e poin

ts of error eleven

and twel ve. Factual Insufficiency

Appe llantar gue s t hat co nt ra dict ions be t wee n t he st at ement s o f the victim and her brothe r, a wit ness t o t he abu se, co mbined wit h incons iste ncies w ithin t h e v i cti m’s o wn t es t imo ny, cr ea ted a s i tua ti on i n wh i ch n o re as on ab l e j ur

y cou l d h av e r en dere d a gui l ty v erdi ct. In de t er mining t he fac t ua l su fficie nc y o f t he ele men t s o f t he o ffen se , t he r ev iew in g courtviews al

l the e vi dence i n a n eutral l igh t, rat her than “

in the ligh t mo st favo ra ble to t he9

prosecution.” Johnso n v. State , 2 3 S .W. 3d 1 , 6 -7 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 200 0) . T he co ur t re views t he evi dence weighe d by

th e j ur y th at te n dsto pr ove t he exist ence of t he element al fact in disput e and com pares i t wi th the evi den ce that tend s to di sprove tha t fact. Id . The i n con siste n ci es ci ted b y appe l l an t go to t h e cre di b i l i ty of the various witnesses, not t o t he und er lyi

ng fact s o f the case. For exam ple , while the vi ctim ’s b rot her testif

ie d that he had been on the floor in the sam

e roo m wh

il e a part icul

ar instance of abuse

was takin

g pla ce, t he vic t im remem bered that none of h

er si bl in gs had b een i n th e room . B al

an ci n g th e cre di b i l i ty of c onflict ing t est imony is wi thin the fact finder’s di scre tion . Penagr

aph v. State , 623 S.W.2d34 1, 34 3 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 198 1) . We re

ject app ellant’ s fact ual insufficiency claim and o ver ru le po int o f err or t hirt een. The j udgme

nt of the trial

court is aff irm ed.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, Patterson and Puryear Af fi rmed File d: April 11, 2002 Do No t Publis

h