Opinion issued July 31, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00881
- CR

——————————— JENNIFER H ZARNFALLE R , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Tex as Trial Court Ca se No. 1370846

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Jennifer H. Zarnfaller, guilty of the felony offense of injury to a child , 1 and t he trial court assessed her punishment at confinement for eighty years. In thirteen issues, appel lant contends that the evidence is legally

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.04(a)(1) , (b)(1), (e) (V ernon Supp. 2017 ); T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 151.001 (Vernon 2014).2

insufficient to support her conviction and her trial counsel provided her with ineffective assistance. We affirm. Background Veronica Parga

- Lopez, formerly the assistant property manager and a tenant at the Wimbl edon Apartments in Spring, Texas (the “apartment complex”), testified that in July 2010, appellant lived with her mother in an apartment near Parga

- Lopez. Appellant would often come to see Parga

- Lopez in the leasing office, “boo

- hooing,

. . . always cryin g, always depress ed, always,

. . . hysterical.” Parga

- Lopez would listen to appell ant , who would confide in her. At one point, appellant, while pregnant with the complainant, told Parga

- Lopez that “[s]he didn’t want the [complainant].”
A fter the complaina nt’s birth, appellant again told Parga

- Lopez that “she didn’t want the [complainant] .” A nd she specifically asked Parga

- Lopez to “ tak e ” the complainant. This caused Parga

- Lopez “a lot of concern,” particularly about appellant’s “abili ty to mother” the co mplainant. Parga

- Lopez opined that appellant did not “enjoy[] having [the complainant] , ” who, she felt, “ was a bother” to appellant. Parga

- Lopez noted that the complainant “was sometimes dirty and smelled like smoke, like cigarettes .” A ppellant “consta ntly drank” and smoked ci garettes3

inside her apartment. She was not employed. Her mother, Rona Landon, was the

“ only provider” for the family. A nd appellant and her boyfriend, Vikas Sharma, spent “most of the time” at home in the apartment with the comp lainant. Parga

- Lopez explained that she and her daughter, Dora, would occas ionally babysit the complainant. T he last time that they watched her , Dora noticed that the complainant was “not her usual self” and “just laid [sic] there.” 2 She was also “fussy ,” “irritable,” and not smiling. And she “didn’t want to eat ” or play. When Parga

- Lopez sought to comfort the complainant by massaging her head, she noticed that her head was “real soft on the side,” “kind of like how [a] b reast feels, like just a gel.” Alarmed, Parga

- Lopez tried to reach appellant and Landon, but appellant “never came to get” the complainant. When Landon came to pick up the complainant later that night, Parga

- Lopez expressed her concern about the complaina nt’s head and demeanor

. Parg a - Lopez further testified that thereafter, her concern for the complainant grew when she noticed that appellant “didn’t come over anymore, didn’t go to the [leasing] office,

. . . [and] just stayed inside.” When Parga

- Lopez later spoke to appellant about the condition of the complainant’s head, appellant responded that

2 Parga

- Lopez also noted that on another occasion, appellant “bang[ed]” on the door to her apartment. When Parga

- Lopez opened it, appellant screamed, “I don’t know what happened.” The compla inant “had blood” on her and a cut inside her mouth and appellant told Parga

- Lopez that the complainant had been “crawling

. . . and [then] stood up and fell.”4

she would “take [th e complainant] to the doctor.” Parga

- Lopez did not see the complainant that day , and she opined that appellant was “hiding something .” Parga

- Lopez explained that o n the day of the complainant’s death, July 28, 2010, she , while away from her apartment, received a tele phone call from the apartment complex’s property manager, who told her that “something had happened to” the complainant. When Parga

- Lopez arrived home, Dora, who was crying, told Parga

- Lopez that she had been “looking out the window” and heard appellant “outside screaming, ” “My Baby, my baby, my baby.” Do ra then saw emergency medical personnel arrive and take the complainant to a hospital. Harris County Sheri ff’s Office (“HCSO”) Deputy M. Newcomb testified that on July 2 8, 2010, he was dispatched to the apartment co mplex for “a CPR in progress.” When he arrived, appellant, Sharma, and the complainant were present. Vivien Miller, a paramedic for Cypress Creek EMS, te stified that on July 28, 2010, she was dispatched to the apartment complex in response to a call about a “cardiac arrest” of an infant. When she arrived, the scene was “compl ete chaos,” and she had great difficulty in “determin[ing] if any type of compressions [had been] done prior to [her] arrival, which is very vital.” A ccording to the complainant’s family members, she “had been feel ing ill all day and

. . . resting in a swing carrier.” When the family members “went to check on her

. . . and pic ked5

her up,” they discovered that “she was unresponsive and not breathing ,” and they telephoned for emergency assistance. Miller explained that her examination of the complainant revealed that she had “no pulse” and w as not “breathing whatsoever.” Miller noted that the complainant had “bruises on her face,” her “little legs” were “so dirty,” and her “rectum did not look normal.” The complainant’s body temperature was ninety

- four degrees, indicating that she was in “a state of septic shock,” which would hav e occur

red “over [a period] of days.” This constituted a “red flag” to Miller because it “indicated that the [complainant] couldn’t have been recently ill as reported” by her family members. Miller further testified that despite extensive lifesaving measu res admi nistered by emergency medical personnel, the complainant remained “in asystole,” meaning “there [was] no

-- absolutely no activity of [her] heart, no muscles in [her] heart [were] moving,

. . . [and] no cells in [her] heart muscle itself [were] wor king at all.” The complainant , who showed no “signs of life , ” was then transported by ambulance to a hospital, where Miller saw appellant’s mother “yell[]” at “mak[e] comments toward” appellant. Dr. Douglas Kasper, the attending physician in the emergency room at the hospital where the complainant was treated , testified that on July 28, 2010, he examined the complainant

. She was unresponsive, had “no respirations,” had no6

pulse or “evidence of cardiac activity,” had sev ere hypothermia, and was dead.
Beca use the complainant had “no signs of life,” Kasper opined that “nothing else could be done” for her.
Dr. Kasper noted that when he informed appellant of the complainant’s death, her “affect was blunted” and “strange .” And s he did not seem to “want to be i nvolved.” Kasper opined that the “story” that appellant had provided to
emergency m edical personnel about what happened to the complainant was “not congruent” with “th[e] massive amount of trauma[]” that the complain ant had sustained. He also stated that he did not believe that whatever had happened to the complainant was “accidental.”
A fter he had pronounced the complainant dead, Dr. Kasper ordered a full scan of the body because of appellant’s “affect” and “things that [he had ] found” during his examina tion of the complainant. For instance, he found that the complainant’s skull was “crushed” or “creaking or cracking,” indicating that she had suffered “skull f

ractures” and “head trauma.” And her skull “felt mushy , ” “lik e there was lots of movement.” Ac cording to Kasper, “something grave had occurred.” 3 In regard to the full body scan, Dr. Kasper explained that it showed that the complainant’s head had sustained “multiple skull fractures,” including a

3 Dr. Kasper noted that his examination of the complainant also showed that she had a “[d]ilate d rectum with tears,” which were “old.”7

“depressed skull fr acture,” “in numerous locations ” ; “hemorrhaging outside the skull ” ; an epidural hematoma “all over the scalp,” indicating that “a very large blood vessel [had been] damaged ” ; a subdural hematoma, indicating that “br idging veins [had been] damaged ” ; and other bleed ing “inside the brain itse lf.” According to Kasper, the “depressed skull fracture” indicated that “some blunt force trauma” to the complainant had occurred , and the force used to cause the fractur e would have been significant. He also noted that the complainant had a pneumomedias tinum, meaning “there was air around the heart where it shouldn’t be” ; “a distal tibia/fibula fracture ” ; a pneumothorax, meaning there was “air outside of the lun g where it’s not supposed to be ” ; “bruising of the lung ” ; “gas in [her] left liver lobe,” pote ntially indicating a “bowel wall in jury ” ; and a “dilated rectum.” Kasper opined that the “air around the heart” and the “air outside of the lung” coul d have been related to a trauma, i ncluding a blunt force trauma. And the “tibia/fibula fracture” was “co nsistent with nonaccidental trauma” because “a child that’s not ambulatory can’t really muster up the acceleration or deceleration to harm themselves in that way.” Kasper further opined , therefore, that there was a “high probability” that “somebody had gr abbed [the complainant] by the leg

. . . and swung [her] around the room” or grabbed her “by [a] lower extremity and str[uck] her head against an object.”8

Deputy J. Ortiz, a member of the HCSO crime scene unit, testified that on July 28, 2010, he was dispa tched to the hospital to photograph the “wou nds” found on the co mplainant. He noted that s he had “readily apparent” “bruising on her cheek” and chest , and she had a “lemon

- size bump” on the right side of her head, which was “a different color” than the ot her parts of the c omplainant’s skin. The complainant also had “redness behind [her] ear,” which could be “visibly see[n]” and “so me [other] bumps on her head.” Ortiz observed discoloration on her back and “bruise discoloration” on her lower leg, above th e an kle. According to Ortiz, the complainant’s injuries were “numerous” and “obvious.” Deputy Ortiz further testified that he spoke to appellant, who showed no emotion, at the hospital to obtain her consent to take photographs of her apartment. In appell ant’s apartment, Ortiz found several prescription pill bottles with appellant’s name on their labels. A nd he saw “lot[s] of empty alcohol bottles” in the closet in the bedroom. HCSO Sergeant R. Hu nter, the lead investigator assigned to the case, testified that on July 28, 2010, he was dispatched to the hospital following the “non[

- ]accidental” death of the complai nant, who was nine

- months old. He determined that appellant, Landon, and Sharma “lived with” and “had ac cess to” the complainant. When Hunter s poke with appellant at the hospital, he noted that she was agitated and “appeared to be mad but not upset and crying.” B ased on his9

“professional experience of having dealt with [similar] cases in the past,” Hunter opined that appellant’s behavior was “qu ite different than someone tha t’s mourning for [her] child.” After speaking to appellant, Landon, and Sharma at the hospital, they agreed to come to the HCSO station to be interviewed. During one audio

- recorded interview with appellant, admitted into evid ence as State’s Exhibit 92 and played for the jury at trial, Serge ant Hunter noted that she frequently referred to t he complainant as “that baby.” A nd appellant admitted to having left the complainant and Sharma alone in her apartment the mor ning of July 28, 2010 so that she could go to a liquor store, where she purchased “a 1.75

- liter bottle of rum.”
A fter listening to an audio recording of appellant’s telephone call for emergency assistance, admitted into evidence as Defense’s Exhibit 1 and played for t he jury at trial, Sergeant Hunter further noted that appellant, on July 28, 2010, had a “slight slur” in her speech indicating that “there might have been some drinking” that had occurred that day , or that she “may have been unde r the influence of somethin g.” Based on his investigation, Hunter opined that appellant had “caused the injuries” sustained by the complainant who was dead at the time that appellant called for emergency assistance. HCSO Lieutenant W. Kuhlman testified that on July 28, 2010, he was dispatched to appellant’s apartment foll owing the complainant’s death. He noted10

that appellant’s apartment was “in desperate need of cleaning” and contained

“ really bad living conditions.” In the closet in one of the bedrooms, Kuhlman found empty “alcoh olic beverage containers, beer boxes, as well as rum bottles.” Lieutenant Kuhlman further testified that he conducted a video

- recorded interview with appellant, admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 93 and played for the jury at trial, d uring which she stated that the complainant, “a couple [of] weeks” before her death, had “ stopped crawling ” and would c ry whenever she was “touched.” Appellant, thinking this “was weird, ” further stated that she had also noticed that, about “a week or two” before the co mplainant’s death, she had become “scared to death” of Sharma. A nd when Sharma would hold her, the complainant “wou ld scream her head off.” Appellant admitted, however, that she continued to allow Sharma to care for and bathe the complainant outside of
ap pellant’s presence. Dr. Dwayne Wolf, the deputy chief medical examiner at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences (“HCIFS”), testified that he performed an autopsy on the body of the complaina nt. He explained that an external examination of the

c omplainant revealed contusions and abrasions on the top and back of her head, behind her ears, 4 on her right forehead, on her left cheek, and on both sides of her

4 Dr. Wolf opined that the contusions behind the complainant’s ears were caused by “impacts to the sides of [her] head.”11

jaw. 5 There was also a hemorrhage near the complainant’s wrist area; contusions on her upper chest, abdomen, and b oth upper and lower extremities; and “scabbed abrasion[s]” on “the right side of [her] chest,” her “central back” area , and “the

o uter part of [her right] leg.” According to Wolf, the contusions sustained by the complainant were caus ed by “blunt force trauma ” 6 by being “struck with an object.” In regard to the complainant’s skull, Dr. Wolf’s examination revealed that the contusions on her head were “extensive” and she had “ fractures on both sides of [her] skull.” The fractures on the right side of the complainant’s head looked as though they had been “hea ling

. . . before the autopsy.” B ut the fractures on the left side of her head were “more acute” and had occurred “shortly befo re [ her] death.” There also appeared to be “depressed fracture[s]” on the complainant’s head, indicating an “impact of the head against [a] surface” or an “impact of a surface or object against the head.”

5 Dr. Wolf noted that the complainant’s jaw was fractured, with one fracture being consistent with “the front of [her] chin” being “impacted.”
6 Dr. Wolf explained that by “blunt force trauma,” he meant that the complainant had been struck with a “blunt object,” such as “a table, floor, chair, hand, [or] fist.” And blunt force trauma would have occurred if the complainant’s head had been struck “against a surface” or if she had been struck “with an object.”12

Also, on the back of the complainant’s head were signs of “recent hemorrhaging ,” and some of the contus ion s and fractures on her head occurred “recent[ly].” 7
Dr. Wolf opined that the contusions on the complainant’s head were caused “by [an] impact with [a] elongated object or objects” and consistent with “a hand striking or slapping” the c omplainant. The complainant was “certainly

. . . struck” on her head, and the hemorrhaging seen in her head was caused by “a si gnificant impact of the head.” Wolf also noted that there was “evidence of direct brain trauma” as the result of “a significant impact ” and the complainant “likely would have been unconsciou s at some point before dying.” He opined that there were likely “at least two or more separate incidents of head trauma” to the complainant, she had to have been struck with “a lot of force,” and the injuries that she sustained were “not the kind of injuries [one] would expect to see from a childhood fall.” Dr. Wolf further noted that the complainant had a con tusion on her left lung and “an impact on [her ] back that’s hard enough” it could have caused the lung to bleed. In other words, the lung contusion was the result of a “blunt tra uma” with

7 Dr. Wolf noted that several contusions on the complainant’s head were “from different time periods,” with some being “acute or recent” and others having started to heal. He explained that some of the complainant’s head injuries were “several days” old, while others were “probably less than six hours” old. In regard to the older skull fractures, Wolf opined that the complainant would have e xhibited symptoms of lethargy or increased sleepiness, crankiness, “general malaise,” or “not feeling well.”13

“considerable force.” There appeared to be a bite mark on the complainant’s arm

. A nd her right forearm had a fracture that appeared to be healing, indicating that her

a rm had been broken seve ral weeks prior to the autopsy. According to Wolf, the fracture on the complainant’s arm would have prevented her from using her hand , and she would not have been able to crawl using that hand.
T he re was also a hemorrhage near the complainant’s wrist area that was “much more recent,” possibly “w ithin six hours” of her death. In regard to the complainant’s left leg, Dr. Wolf explained that her tibia and fibula had been fractured “near the time of [her] death” as a result of “bending [her] foot back or the lower part [her] leg back or an impact.” And the lo cation of the leg fractures

was “consistent with [the complainant] being struck against something” or someone “grabbing onto [her] leg and possibly swinging th[e] leg.” Dr. Wolf fu rther testified that his examination of the complainant revealed that she did not show any signs of illness or disease and nothing other than the injuries he described at trial would have prevented her “from living a healthy life.” Based on the autopsy, W olf opined that the cause of the complainant’s death was “blunt trauma to the head with skull fractures of the br ain injury ” and he r death

was a result of a homicide. Dr. Deborrah Pinto, a forensic anthropologist with the HCIFS, testified that she performe d “a pediatric skeletal survey” of the complainant’s body to assess the14

extent of damage and the age of her various bone injuries. Pinto explained that the fracture injuries to the right side of the complainant’s skull 8 and her right arm were “healing inj uries , ” which occurred “within a month” of her death. However, the injuries to the left side of the complainant’s skull, 9 jaw, left tibia, and left fibula 10 occurred “at or around the time of [the complainant’s] death.” Pinto opined that at least “two tra umatic events” had occurred

— one “likely within the month prior to [her] death” and the other “at or around the time” of her death. It was also possible that more than two traumatic events had occurred. Appellant testified that before the complainant was bo rn, she had given birth to two other chil dren. Because she had “f[allen] on hard times,” “didn’t have money,” was “getting evicted , ” and “didn’t have anywhere to go,” appellant sent her two children to live with her aunt with whom “they would have such a great life .” After “a year or two,” appellant allowed her aunt to adopt her two children.

8 Dr. Pinto opined that fractures on the right side of the complainant’s skull were caused by a “right to left

. . . direct[] impact with an objec t of small

- to

- medium surface area” and not the ground.
9 Dr. Pinto explained that the fractures on the left side of the complainant’s skull were caused by an “impact” with “something” with a “relatively small surface” area and not the ground. 10 Dr. Pinto noted that the fractures to the complainant’s tibia and fibula would have been caused by her foot “being pushed into the leg; so some type of force [that would] driv[e] the foot and the leg together so that the bone gives way at the ankle and

. . . just c ollapse[].” The force needed to cause the tibia and fibula fractures would have been “significant,” “more than just regular

. . . day

- to

- day handling.”15

Her daughter is now “an honor student , ” and her son plays baseball at high school and is on a “Select Baseball team.” When appellant was “six months pregnant” with the complainant, she moved into the apar tment complex with Landon. After her birth on October 4, 2009, the complainant lived in the apartment with “[a]t first just ” appe llant and Landon. When the complainant was “about three months old,” Sharma, who had been living in a “catty

- corner” apartment “with his wife, Michelle,” mo ved into appellant’s apartment. Appellant explained that Sharma lived in the apartment at “the time of [the complainant’s] death” and continued to do so afterwards. Appellant admitted that after the complainant’s death, she continued “sleeping in the same bedroom” with Sharma. Appellant explained that she was not working when the complainant was born and it had been “[a]while” “since [sh e] had held a regular job.” Her mother, in contr ast, worked “normal hours during the day” and was “the sole source of income” for the household. A week before the complainant’s death, Sharma be gan working the “night

- shift.” Before the complainant’s death, appellant was home most of the time w ith the c omplainant. A t all times, either appellant’s mother or Sharma were there with her and the complainant, depending on the time of day.
A nd, a ccording to appellant, she would only “occasionally” drink alcoholic beverages.16

O n July 27, 2010, the day bef ore t he complainant’s death, appellant called the complainant’s pediatrician to make a “sick[

- ]baby appointment” because the
comp lainant “wasn’t feeling good.” On July 28, 2010, the day of the complainant’s death, appellant, after Landon “left for work,” was “ in [her] bed” when she “heard [the complainant] screaming.” She then t ook the complainant from Sharma. She noted that this incident “didn’t alarm” her because she “just thought [the c omplainant] was being cranky.” She subsequently “went to the liquor st ore,” leaving “only [Sharma] and [the complai nant alone] in the apartment” for “[a]bout 15, 20 minutes.” When appellant returned to the apartment, she noticed that the complainant “didn’t seem like she felt that well” and “felt hot,” but otherw ise “she was acting normally.” Appellant then took the complainant’s temperature, “gave her Tylenol,” “fed [her] a bottle , ” and “held her for a little while” before “put[ting] her in [her baby] swing.” While the complainant was sleeping in her swing, appellant and S harma started “watching TV” and “[h]aving [some] drinks.” Appellant had “two or three” drinks, and after a few hours, Sharma went “to go get [the complainant’s] blanket.”
H e then “ came running out , ” saying, “[t]here’s something wrong. . . with [the compl ainant]” and “she [is not] breathing.” Appellant then “immediately” called for emergency assistance.17

In regard to the complainant, appellant agreed that she had been “an active baby,” whose “main mode of transportation” was crawling. And when asked wheth er she had ever noticed the complainant “not being able to crawl because of the broken arm,” appellant stated that “[s]he crawled. She was crawling.” She explained, “[i]t wasn’t like there was some thing wrong like she was hurt. She never cried. She was al ways laughing and happy.” According to appellant, if she had noticed that the complainant was “unable to crawl because something was wrong with her arm or her leg,” she “would have t[aken] her to the emergency room.”
I n regard to who she thought had cause d the fractures to the complainant’s skull and leg, appellant testified that, “I feel that [Sharma] did it.” And although Landon had previously told her that the complainant had fallen, “like, thr ee times

. . . off the bed,” appellant herself had ne ver se en the complainant fall. She also stated that she had never seen Sharma “ hit” or “drop” the complainant. Further, she explained that the “bump” on the complainant’s forehead was “a
mosqu ito bite” that had “welled up.” Moreover, al though she admitted tha t the “other bruises” on the complainant were “obvious,” she stated that she “didn’t see them” before. When appellant bathed the complainant the night before her death, she did not observe any “unusual mark or bruise” on the complainant’s body.18

Dr. Laeeq Khan, the complainant’s pediatrician, testified about the complainant’s medical care prior to her death and the developmental “checkup” examinations that he had conducted on the complainant. On cross

- examination, Khan admitted that it would be “incredibly difficult for a 9

- month

- old to be mobile in any way” with the fractures that she had sustained to her arm

. A nd he agreed that the complainant’s arm fr actures and external injuries observed at the time of her death “would certainly be noticeable and obvio us” and would be “ concerning ” to a pediatrician and a parent. Sufficiency of the Evidence In her first issue, appellant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction because the State did not prove that she “knowing[ly] injur[e d]” the complaint by omission. She asserts that there is “no evidence” that she “was aware with reasonable certainty that [the complainant] would be injured in any way” or that “an injury would have been prevented had [she] done something/anything to prot ect [the complainant] or sought medical attention for [the complainant] in a timely manner.” We review the legal sufficiency of the evidence by considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict to determine whether any
“r ational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime b eyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 3 19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 27 8919

(1979); Williams v. State , 235 S.W.3d 74 2, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Our role is that of a due process safeguard, ensuring only the rationality of the trier of fact’s finding of the essential elements of the offe nse beyond a reasonable doubt. See Moreno v. State , 755 S.W.2d 86 6, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We give deference to the responsib ility of the fact finder to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh evidence, and draw reasona ble inferences from the facts. Williams , 235 S.W.3d at 750. However, our duty requires us to “ensure that the evidence presented actually supports a conclu sion that the defendant committed” the criminal offense of which

s he is accused. Id. We note that in reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, a court must consider both direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as any reasonable inferences that m ay be drawn from the evidence. See Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Circumstantial evidence is just as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and a conviction may be supported by circumsta ntial e vidence standing alone. See Kuciemba v. State , 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Te x. Crim. App. 2010). “Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is suffi cie nt to support the conviction.” Hooper v. State , 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (T ex. Crim. App. 2007). The jury, as the judge of the facts and credibility of the witnesses, could choose to believe or not to believe the20

witnesses, or a ny portion of their testimony. Sharp v. State , 707 S.W.2d 6 1 1, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Jenkins v. State , 870 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d). A person commits the offense of injury to a child if s he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes ser ious bodily injury by omission to a child when she has a legal duty to act. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.04( a)(1), (b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2017 ); see also T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 151.001 (Vernon 2014) (rights and duties of parent). “Child” means a person fou rtee n years of age or younger. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.04(c)(1). “Serious bodily injury” means “ bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function o f any bodily member or organ.” Id. § 1.07(a)(46) (Vernon Supp. 2017 )

. “Injury to a child is a result

- oriented offense requiring a mental state that relates not to the specific conduct but t o the result of that conduct.” Williams , 235 S.W.3d at 750; see a lso Thompson v. State , 227 S.W.3d 153, 159 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). Thus, “[t]he State must prove that a defendant caused a child’s serious bodily injury with t he requisite criminal intent.” Williams , 235 S.W.3d at 750. A person acts “intentionally” or with intent “with respect to .

. . a result of [her] conduct when it is [her] conscious objective or desi re
to .

. . cause the result.” T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 6.03(a) (Vernon 2011). A21

person acts “knowingly” or with knowledge “wi th respect to a result of [her] conduct when [she] is aware that [her] conduct is reasonably certai n to cause the result.” Id . § 6.03(b). Direct evidence of the required mental state is not required. Hart v. State , 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 2). Instead, proof of mental state almost always depends upon circumstantial evidence. Smith v. State , 56 S.W.3d 739, 745 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). Knowledge and intent may be inferred from any facts which tend to prove their ex istence, including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and the method of committing the crime and from the nature of w ounds infl icted on the complainant

. Hart , 89 S.W.3d at 64; Manrique v. State , 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see al so Stahle v.
State , 970 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d) (“ Knowledge may be inferred from an accused’ s acts, words, and conduct.”). Here, a ppellant stood accused by indictment of intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury t o the complainant, a child younger than fifteen years of age, by fa iling to protect her

. 11

11 Appellant also stood accused by indictment of intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily inju ry to the complainant by failing to seek medical attention for her in a timely manner

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.04(a)(1), (b)(1) . The trial court’s charge authorized the jury to convict appellant if it found she intentionally or knowingly caused ser ious bodily injury to the complainant, a child younger than fifteen years of age, by fail ing to protect her or by failing to seek medical attention for her in a timely manner . The jury returned a general verdict22

Appellant specifically argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that she was aware with reasonable certainty that her failure to protect the

com plainant would cause the complainant serious bodily injury because there is “no evidence” that she was aware of the complainant’s previous injuries or that the complainant had suffered severe abuse before her death, suc h that appellant would have known tha t allowing Sharma or Landon to have access to the complainant would place the complainant in danger of sustaining further serious bodily injury. There is ample evidence in the record that establishes that the complainant had suffered serious injuries tha t would have been apparent to appellant in the weeks leading up to her death

. F orensic anthropologist Dr. Pinto testified about the age of the compla inant’s various bone injuries. A nd he explained that the fractures to the right side of the complainant’s skull and her right arm were “healing injuries” that occurred “within a month” of her death. Similarly, Dr.

of guilty of the felony offense of injury t o a child as alleged in the indictment. “When a general verdict is returned and the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt under any of the paragraph allegations submitted, the verdict will be upheld.” Herrin v. State , 125 S.W.3d 436, 441 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ( quoting McDuff v. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)) ; see also Anderson v. State , 416 S.W.3d 884, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (when charge authorizes jury to convict defendant on more than one theory, verdict of guilt will be upheld if evidence sufficient on any theory authorized by jury charge)

. Thus, if the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction of the offense of injury to a child based on her failure to protect the complainant, we need not address whether the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction based on a failure to seek medical attention for the complainant in a timely manner. See Russo v. State , 228 S.W.3d 779, 795 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2007, pet. ref’d); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1

.23

Wolf , who performed the autopsy on the complainant’s body, opined that there had likely been “at least two or more sep arate incidents of head trau ma, ” noting that some of the complainant’s head injuries were “several days” old. Several witnesses testified that the trauma the complainant suffered in the weeks prior t o her death would have been readily apparent

. In regard to pain , Dr. Wolf explained that the head trauma she had suffered would have caused the complainant to exhibit symptoms of lethargy, sleepiness, crankiness, “general

m alaise,” or “not feeling well.” And the complainant’s broken right forearm would have prevented use of her hand such that she wo uld have been unable to crawl. Appellant’s own witness, Dr. Khan, who was the complainant’s pediatrician, agreed that these injuries would have be en “noticeable and obvious” in a nine

- month

- old and “concerning” to him , both a s a pediatrician a nd parent. See Sandoval v. State , No. 14

- 12

- 00879

- CR, 14

- 12

- 00880

- CR, 2014 WL 3870504, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (evidence sufficient to show defendant knew with reasonable degr ee of certainty her child abused, where child “ covered in b ruises at the time of her death ” and testimony bone fractures and other injuries “would have caused the child pain”); see also Guerrero v. State , No. 04

- 15

- 00762

- CR, 2016 WL 4537694, at *8 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio Aug. 31, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op

. ,24

not designated for publication) (knowledge failure to act substantially certain to result in serious bodily injury inferrable from apparent and obvious condition ).
T he record also shows that the complaina nt had visible injuries to her body at the time of her death

. Deputy Ortiz, who saw the complainant at the hospital following her death, noted “numerous,” “ob vious,” and “readily apparent ” injuries, including “bruising on her cheek” and chest , a “lemon

- si ze bump” on the right side of her head , “redness behind [her] ear,” “so me [other] b umps on her head, ” obvious discoloration on her back , and “bruise discoloration” on h er lower leg

. See Tijerina v. State , No. 13

- 11

- 00430

- CR, 2012 WL 3525632, at *5 (Tex. A pp.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 16, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (eyewitness testimony concerning child’ s appearance provide d evidence of extent of defendant’s awareness of child’s condition); Payton v. State , 106 S.W.3d 326, 328

– 30 (T ex. App.

—

Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d) (jury could reasonably conclude defendant kn ew eighteen

- month

- old child seriously inju red because emergency medical personnel immediately noticed bruises and distended stomach caused by internal bleeding). Dr. Wolf’s external examination of the complainant also revealed evidence of what appeared to be a bite mark on her arm and “blunt force trauma,” including bruises, contusions, and abrasions on the top and back of her head, on both sides of her jaw, behind her ears, and on her right forehead, left cheek, upper chest,25

abdomen, back , and bot h upper and lower extremities

. See Tijerina , 2012 WL 3525632, at *5; Payton , 106 S.W.3d at 328

– 30.
T here is also evidence that appellant had actual knowledge that the complainant ha d been seriously injured in the weeks before her death. In an interview with Lieutenant Kuhlman , appellant stated that “[a] couple of weeks” before the complainant’s death, she noticed that the complainant had “stopped crawling” and would cry when “ touche d. ” 12 And at trial, appellant admitted that she had seen the “bump” on the complainant’s forehead , although she stated that she believed it to be “a mosqui to bite” that had “welled up” and w hen shown photographs of the c omplainant’s body at trial, appellan t acknowledged that many of the bruises were noticeable, although she could not explain why she had not noticed them before the complainant’s death. Parga

- Lopez’s testimony provides further evidence that appellant was aware that the complainant had been se riously injured in the weeks leading up to her death. While the complainant w as in the care of Parga

- Lopez’s daughter, Dora,

12 At trial, however, appellant testified that she did not notice the complainant “not being able to crawl because of the broken arm ” and the complainant did not act “like there was som ething wrong like she was hurt. She never cried. She w as always laughing and happy.” However, the jury, as the judge of the facts and credibility of the witnesses, could choose to believe or not to believe appellant’s testimony. See Sharp v. State , 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ; Jenkins v. State , 870 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d)

. Further, we note that “i nconsistent statements . . . are probative of wrongful conduct and ar e also circumstances of guilt.” Guevara v. State , 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004 ).26

she noticed that the comp lainant was “not her usual self ” and “just laid [sic] there.” She was also “fussy,” “irritable,” “didn’t want to eat,” or “play,” and she was not smiling. Parga

- Lopez discovered that the complainant’s head was “real s oft on the side,” like “a gel.” After she tried unsuccessfully to reach appellant, Parga

- Lopez expressed her concerns about the complainant’s head and demeanor to appellant’s mother , Landon

. Later, her lingering concern led Parga

- Lopez to check on the complainant at appellant’s apartment, where appellant assured her that she would “take [the complainant] to the doctor.” Perez v. State , No. 08

- 12

- 00340

- CR, 2015 WL 4940375, at *9 (Tex. App.

— El Paso Aug. 19, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication) ( defendant ’s misrepresentation to witness she had soug ht medical care for child established defendant ’s knowledge child seriously ill , but refu sed t o seek medical care ). There is also evidence in the record that appellant had motive not to protect the complainant because she did not want her. See Guevara v. State , 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“Motive is a significant circumstance in dicating guilt. Intent may also be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and the conduct of the appellant.” (internal citations omitted) ). Parga

- Lopez explained that during her pregnancy with the complainant, appellant confided that

s he did not want the complainant. And after the complain ant’s birth, appellant27

asked Parga

- Lopez to take the complainant permanently because she did not want her. Parga

- Lopez also testified that after she had visited appellant to communicate her concern s about the complainant, appellant stopped visiting her at the apartment complex’s leasing office and instead “just stayed inside” her apartment. Parga

- Lopez opined that app ellant was “hiding something. ” See
Guevara , 152 S.W.3d at 50 (attempts to conceal i ncriminating evidence probative of wrongful conduct and also circumstance of guilt); Hart , 89 S.W.3d at 64 (jury may infer both intent and knowledge from any facts tend ing to prove existence of mental states, including defendant’s acts, words, or conduct); In re P.M.S. , No. 03

- 01

- 00178

- CV, 2001 WL 1167166, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Oct. 4, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (“Proof of a culpable mental state generally relies upon circumstantial evidence, such as the suspicious conduct or statemen ts of the
actor .

. . . ”). Further, in her interview with Lieutenant Kuhlman, appellant stated that in the weeks before the complainant’s death, she had bec ome “scared to death” of Sharma. And when Sharma would hold her , the complainant “would scream her head off.” Despite this, appellant admitted that she continued to allow Sharma to conti nue to care for and bathe the complainant outside of her presence

. This includes the morning of the complainant’s death, when , even after having “heard28

[the complaina nt] screaming” while in Sharma’s arms earlier that morning , appellant left the complainant with him so she could go to the “liquor store. ” Appellant’s delay in seeking medical assistance for the complainant on the day she die d further indicates her inten t

. D e spite Dr. Wolf’s testimony that the complainant “likely would have been unconsc ious at some point before dying ” due to the brain trauma that she had suffere d from being struck on the head, appellant waited until the complainant had stopped breathing before calling for emergency assistance. 13 See Vasquez v. State , No. 13

- 08

- 00684

- CR, 2011 WL 345919, at *20 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Jan. 31, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (because defendant knew complainant sick and had t hrown up many times, his stomach hurt, he had bruises to his lower abdomen and other parts of his body, and he had “labored” breathing, jury could reasonably conclude defendant

13 We note that in her brief, appellant asserts that the evidence shows that the only indication that she had that the complainant had suffered head trauma before her death led her to take the complainant to her pediatrician, Dr. Khan , on July 6, 2010

. She points out that, according to medical testimony , it is possible that the first skull fracture could already have been inflicted at this point. She then asserts that it had , and that she had misidentified , and Dr. Khan’s physician’s assistant misdiag nosed , it a s conjunctivitis and rhinitis. However, t he jury was free to acce pt or reject this explanation. Evidence is not insuf ficient merely because a defendant offers a differ ent explanation for the facts. See Jenkins v. State , No. 01

- 05

- 00299

- CR, 20 06 WL 23323, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 5, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Coleman v. State , 113 S.W.3d 496, 502 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff’d , 145 S.W. 3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). And the fact finder alone determines what weight to place on contradictory testimonial evidence, as it depends on the evaluatio n of credibility and demeanor. Cain v. State , 958 S.W.2d 404, 408

– 09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Jenkins , 2006 WL 23323, at *6.29

knew complainant suffered some sort of blunt

- force trauma requiring medical
treatmen t); see also Hart , 89 S.W.3d at 64 (jury may infer both intent and knowledge from any facts tend ing to prove existence of mental states, including defendant’s acts, words, or conduct); In re P.M.S. , 2001 WL 1167166, at *2 (proof of culpable mental state ge nerally relies upon circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious c onduct or statements of actor). Further, s everal witnesses were troubled by appellant’s incongruous demeanor in respon se to the complainant’s de ath. Dr. Kasper, the emergency physician who treated the complainant at the hospital, testified that “the affect of [appellant] was very strange in general,” describing it as “blunted” and not “want[ing] to be involved.” Deputy Ortiz, who observed appellant at the hospital,
note d that “there was no emotion.” And Sergeant Hunter noted that appellant appeared to be agita ted , but “not upset or crying.” He further opined that her behavior was “quite different than someone tha t’s mourning for [her] child.” See
Hart , 89 S.W.3d at 64 (jury may infer both intent and knowledge from any facts tending to prove their existence, including defendant’s acts, words, or conduct); In re P.M.S. , 2001 WL 1167166, at *2 (proof of culpable mental state generally relies upon circumstantial evidence, such as actor’s suspi cious conduct or statements).
F inally, appellant does not dispute the fact that she continued living with Sharma, who she believed was responsible f or the complainant’s injuries. See30

Hart , 89 S.W.3d at 64 (jury may infer both intent and knowledge from any facts tending to prove their existence, including defendant’s acts, words, or conduct); In re P.M.S ., 2001 WL 1167166, at *2 (proof of culpable mental state generally relies upon circumstantial evidence, such as actor’s suspiciou s conduct or statements ). Given the record evidence that appellant was made aware of the soft spot on the complainant’s skull; appellant admitted that she knew the complainant had stopped crawling and would cry when touched, especially wh en being touched by Sharma; appellant admitt ed that many of the complainant’s br uises were immediately apparent; and appellant did not want the complainant, the jury could have reasonably conclude d that appellant was aware with reasonable certainty that fai ling to protect the complainant, by prevent ing her from being left in the care of those who were supervising her when her injuries occurred, would continue to result in serious bo dily injury to the complainant. See Sandoval , 2014 WL 3870504, at *6 ( evidence sufficient to show defendant knew with r ea sonable degree of certainty girlfriend abusing child, where “the complainant was covered in bruises at the time of her deat h ” and testimony bone fractures and other injuries “would have caused the child pain” ); Dusek v. State , 978 S.W.2d 129, 134 ( Tex.
A pp.

— Austin 1998, pet. ref’ d) (jury could r ationally conclude mother of child whose body covered by many large bruises of varying ages knew boyfriend abusing child ).31

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that appellant intentionally or knowingly caused serious bodily injury by omission to a child by failing to protect the complainant when she had a legal duty to act. 14 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.04(a)(1), (b)(1); T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 151.001; see also Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 27 89; Williams , 235 S.W.3d at 750. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for injury to a child. We overrule appellant’s first issue.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel In her second through thirteenth issues, appellant argues that her trial counsel did not provide her with effective assistance because counsel did not “object to the State’s closing argument”; “discover wheth er the State intended to use extraneous conduct against [a]ppellant”; “request notice of expert witnesses”; “object[] to the introduction of” a portion of State’s Exhibit 4; “apply for a subpoena”; “object to the [trial court’s] charge” to the jury or “req uest[] an appropriate instruction on the issue of ‘but for’ causation”; “object to [Sergeant]

14 Having held th at the evidence is sufficient to support appellant ’ s conviction for the offense of injury to a child based on her failure to protect the complainant, we do not reach the issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction based on the alternative theory of failure to seek medical attention. See Anderson , 416 S.W.3d at 889; see also T EX
. A PP
. P. 47.1.32

Hunter’s opinion testimony”; “object to inadmissible, extraneous, prejudicial, character conformity evidence”; “request a limiting instruction to inadmissible,

ex traneous, prejudicial, character conformity evidence”; “give an opening statement”; or move for a directed verdict. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to the reasonably effective assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. U.S. C ONST
. amend. VI; Garcia v. State , 57 S.W.3d 43 6, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that (1) her trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonab le probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceed ing would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687

– 88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984); Lopez v. State , 343 S.W.3d 137,
142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermi ne confidence in the outcome.” Strickland , 466 U. S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. In reviewing counsel’s performance, we look to the totality of the representation to determine th e effectiveness of counsel, indulging a strong presumption that counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance or trial strategy. See Robertson v. State , 187 S.W.3d 475, 482

– 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Appellant ha s the burden to establish both prongs of the Strickland test by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson v. State , 97333

S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). An appellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the test negates a court’s need to consider th e other prong. Williams v.
State , 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Generally, a silent record that provides no explanation for counsel’s actions will not overcome the strong presump tion of reasonable assistance. Goodspeed v.
State , 187 S.W.3d 39 0, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In rare cases in which trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is apparent from the record, an appellate court may address and dispose of the claim on direct appeal. Lopez , 343 S.W.3d at 143. However, the record must demonstrate th at counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of law and no reasonable trial strategy could justify trial counsel’s acts or omissions, regardless of c ounsel’s subjective reasoning. Id. Closing Argument In her se cond and thirteenth issues, appellant argues that her trial counsel improperly failed to object to the State’s closing argument to the jury because the State “asked the jury to convict on a theory contrary to the law and the jury charge” and its argument “ was outside the four general areas of jury argument.” In her second issue, appellant complains about the following portion of the State’s closing argument: Now, intentionally and knowingly, there’s something a little different here that we didn’t have in voir dire. Intentionally and knowingly34

doesn’t go to her causing the actual injuries, right? Because she’s charged with omission. That mental state of intentionally and knowingly means that she intentionally and knowingly failed to get medical attention t hat the child needed. She intentionally and knowingly failed to protect that child, as opposed to recklessly. And so, that’s pretty obvious with the evidence, right? Appellant asserts that “to properly convict [her],” the State had to prove that she “cons ciously and deliberately omitted performing some act,

. . . knowing that ‘but for’ that omission, [the complainant’s] death was reasonably certain.” The State does not dispute this characterization of its burden. However, it responds that, taken in conte xt, the complained

- of argument was merely a botched effort to explain that it “ was not required to prove that appellant caused the init ial injuries to the complainant.” The State acknowledges that it was “required to prove that appellant caused additional serious bodily injury to the complainant by failing to seek medical attention

. . . [or] by failing to protect the complainant.” And it notes that it, later in its closing argument, explained to the jury, “you have to agree overall that [appellant] cause d serious bodily injury by omission.” Here, although the State’s inartful explanation to the jury of a complex legal concept may not have been ideal, we cannot conclude that appellant’s trial counsel’s decision to not object to it was “so outrageous that n o competent attorney” would have done the same. See Menefield v. State , 363 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Goodspeed , 187 S.W.3d at 392 ) . T rial counsel could have reasonably concluded that it was unnecessary to object to the35

complained

- of argument because the trial court had already properly instruct ed the jury on the subject, and counsel did not wan t to further confuse the jury. See
Brown v. State , 482 S.W.3d 157, 164 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015, no pet.) (trial counsel could have found it unnecessary to address misstatement by State in closing argument because “the trial court was going to instruct the jury on the proper standard of proof and/or because he did not want to further confuse the jury”); see also Helmke v. State , No. 04

- 12

- 00 826

- CR, 2013 WL 5570474, at *3 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Oct. 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication) (assistance not ineffective where alleged misstatement of law by trial counsel was considered in context of other statements). Where a r eviewing court can conceive of a poten ti ally reasonable trial strategy that co unsel could have been pursuing, it “ simply cannot conclude that

couns el has performed deficiently

. ” Andrews v. State , 159 S.W.3d 9 8, 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, in the absence of a record reflecting why appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the complained

- of statements , and given the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance, we hold that appel lant has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial counsel’s decision to not object was reasonable. See Jackson v. State , 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (appellate court may not conclude, based on speculation, counsel ineffective when rec ord silent36

about why he made decisions at trial); see also Miles v. State , No. 01

- 11

- 00401

- CR, 2012 WL 2357449, at *4 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist.] June 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“In the absence of a record reflecting why [defendant]’s counsel did not object, we hold that the record does not firmly estab lish deficient performance.”).
In her thirteenth issue, appellant complains about the following portion of th e State’s closing argument : And as you’ve sat there this we ek, I know that many of you have thought, I wish [the complainant] had been older so she could run to [Parga

- Lopez]’s apartment and say, [Parga

- Lopez] my mommy’s hurting me. [Sharma], he ’s hurting me, please help me. I know many of you have thought that. S he could call her Aunt

. . . and say, Please save me like you did [appellant’s two older children]. Proper jury a rgument generally must concern one of the following areas: (1) a summation of the evidence presented at trial, (2) a reasonable deduction draw n from that evidence, (3) an answer to opposing counsel’s argument, or ( 4) a plea for law enforcement. Guidry v. State , 9 S.W.3d 133, 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Acosta v. State , 411 S.W.3d 76, 93 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Although a ppellant argues in her brief that because the complained

- of statements “fell outside of the four areas of [permissible] jury argument , ” her trial counsel should have objected to them , she provides no supporting argument or authorities , nor any analysis or explana tion , to support her argument

. See Tufele v.37

State , 130 S.W.3d 267, 2 71 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (“Appellant has a duty to cite specific legal authority and to provide legal argument based upon that authority.”).
An appellant ’s “brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropri ate citations to authorities and to the record .” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i). And an appellant waives an issue on appeal if she does not adequately brief that issue, i. e., by presenting suppor ting arguments and authorities. I

d. ; Cardenas v. State , 30 S.W.3d 38 4, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly , we hold that she has waived her complaint that her trial counsel provided her in effective assistance by not objecting to the State’s closing argument as “ outside the four general areas of jury a rgument.” See Lucio v. State , 351 S.W.3d 878, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (point of error inadequately briefed “presents nothing for review”); Ruiz v. State , 293 S.W.3d 685, 693 (T ex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d) (complaint waived where defendant’s brief “contain [ed] no argument or authorities” to support contention that his counsel was ineffective); Tufele , 130 S.W.3d at 270

– 71 (ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel complaint wai ved for inadequate briefing); see also Castellanos v. State , No. 13

- 04

- 023

- CR, 2005 WL 1981519, at *2 (Tex. App.

— C orpus Christi Aug. 18, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( defendant waived38

ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel complaint by “fail[ing ] to make a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations ” as required by rule 38.1 ). We overrule appellant’s second and thirteenth issues.

“ Extraneous Conduct” Evidence
In her third, ninth, an d tenth issues, appellant asserts that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding certain “extraneous conduct” evidence admitted at trial. 15
In her third issue, appellant arg ues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not filing a written request “to discover whe ther the State intended to use extraneous conduct [evidence] against [h er]” at trial because it used such evi dence to suggest that she was “a miserable mother of two other children.” And

15 In discussing “extraneous conduct [evidence],” appellant directs us to the following evidence admitted at trial: (1) appellant’s two older children went to live with, and were ultimately adopted by, appellant’s aunt; (2) appellant failed to appear in court in connection with her custody of her two older children, resulting in full custody being awarded to her aunt; (3) the complaina nt was exposed to methadone at birth; (4) appellant did not want the complainant; (5) appellant offered to give the complainant away; (6) Child Protective Services was involved in supervising appellant’s custody of the complainant; (7) appellant on occasi ons other than the date of the complainant’s death commonly went to Spec’s liquor store to purchase liquor within 15 minutes of 10:00 a.m. opening time; (8) appellant came from a family with divorced parents; (9) none of appellant’s children share the same father; (10) none of appellant’s children’s fathers were in the children’s lives; (11) appellant lived with Sharma, a married man; (12) appellant continued living with Sharma after the complainant’s death; and (13) appellant and Sharma lived off of appell ant’s mother.39

“[h]ad trial counsel filed a

. . . request in an attempt to discover whether the State intended to use extraneous conduct [evidence] against [a]ppellant, the State would have been compelled to give notice” of such evidence.
T he record is silent as to why appellant’s tria l counsel did not file a written request “to discover whether the State intended to use extraneous conduct [evid ence] against [her]” at trial. See Menefield , 363 S.W.3d at 593 (“An ineffective

- assistance claim must be firmly founded in the record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the meritorious nature of the claim.”) (internal quotations omitted)); Bone v. State , 77 S.W.3d 828, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not built on retrospective speculation; they must be firmly founded in the record.”) ( internal quotations omitted)). Therefore, we must presume that counsel was acting pursuant to a sound trial strategy. See Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 833; see also Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (“There is a strong presumption that counsel’ s conduct fell within the w ide range of reasonable professional assistance.”); Crocker v. State , 441 S.W.3d 306, 315 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’ d) (“Because the record is silent concerning counsel’s reasons for not objecting, we must presume counsel had a valid st rategy.”); Smith v. State , 84 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (“Without evidence of the strategy and meth ods40

involved concerning counsel’ s actions at trial, the court will presume sound trial strategy.”)

. Further, in general, a trial coun sel’s fa ilure to file pre

- trial motions such as a request for notice of intent to introduce “extraneous conduct” evidence does not rise to the level of inef

fective assistance of counsel. See Autry v. State , 27 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. App.

— San An tonio 2000, pet. ref’d) ( trial counsel may have received oral notice from State and defendant “has not stated what steps he would have taken if he had received written notice of the State’s intent to introduce extraneous evidence”); see also Petty v. State , No. 01

- 01

- 00213

- CR, 2001 WL 1315028, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 25, 2001, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (defendant did not meet burden of showing trial counsel’s deficient performance because he “did not show that the State di d not
prov ide oral notice. . . [which] would explain why defense counsel did not object” (internal citations omitted) ). Accordingly, in the absence of a record reflecting why appellant ’s trial counsel did not file a written reque st “to discover whether the State int ended to use extraneous conduct [evidence] against [her]” at trial, and given the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance, we hold that appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial co urt’s decision was reasonable. See Jackson , 877 S.W.2d at 77141

(appellate court may not conclude, based on speculation, counsel ineffective when record silent about why he made decisions at trial); see also Miles , 2012 WL 2357449, at *4 (“In th e absence of a record reflecting why [defendant]’s counsel did not object, we hold that the record does not firmly estab lish deficient performance.”). In her ninth and tenth issues, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance i n not objecting to or “request[ing] a limiting instruction,” pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 105(a), about certain “extraneous conduct” evidence because such evidence was inadmissible under Texas Rules of Evidenc e 401, 402, 403, 404, and 405.
As previou sly noted , an appellant’s “brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropri ate citations to authorities and to the record .” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i); see also Tufele , 130 S.W.3d at 271 (“Appellant has a duty to ci te specific legal authority and to provide legal argument based upon that authority.”). And an appellant waives an issue on appeal if she does not adequately brief that issue by presenting supporting argument s and authorities. Id. ; Cardenas , 30 S.W.3d at 393. Here, appellant has not made any attempt to demonstrate how the admission of the “extraneous conduct” evidence about which she complains violates the Texas Rules of Evidence , or how her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance42

by not objecting to such evidence or re questing a limiting instruction. Accordingly, we hold that she has waived her complaint that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not objecting to or “request[ing] a limiting instruction,” pursuant to Texas Rule of Ev idence 105(a), about certain “extraneous conduct” evidence. See Lucio , 351 S.W.3d at 896

– 97; Ruiz , 293 S.W.3d at 693; Tufele , 130 S.W.3d at 270

– 71; see also Castellanos , 2005 WL 1981519, at *2. We overrule appellant’s third, ninth and tenth issues. Notice of Expert Witnesses In her fourth issue, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not “request[ing] notice of [the] expert witnesses” to be called by the State because “[o]ne purpose of requesting and receiving notice of expert witnesses is to adequately prepare for cross

- examination” and “[i]t [is] patently clear f

rom the record that [trial ] counsel

. . . f ailed to accomplish any meaningful cross

- examination of the State’s expert[]” witnesses. Here, we note that the St ate supplied appellant with its expert witness list well in advance of trial, making trial coun sel’s decision not to request it of no
consequenc e to the outcome of the trial. Thus, we cannot conclude that there is a reasonable probability that but for cou nsel’s purported error, the result of the proceed ing would have been different. See Fisher v. State , No. 09

- 11

- 00379

- CR, 2012 WL 5450828, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Nov. 7, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.,43

not designa ted for publication) (defendant failed to show prejudice because “[r]egardless of the fact that trial counsel failed to make a motion, all of the State’s expert witnesses were timely designated” and defendant failed to allege how filing motion for timely designation of experts “reasonably could have c hanged the outcome of his case”); Arnolie v. State , No. 01

- 11

- 00348

- CR, 2012 WL 1143591, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] April 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (rejecting ineffective

- assistance complaint based on failure to timely request notice of “other bad acts” because record indic ated counsel received notice). Accordingly, we hold that appellant has not shown that she suffered prejudice because her counsel did not “request notice of [the] expert witness es” to be called by the State. See Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant’s failure to make any effort to prove prejudice from counsel’s allegedly deficient performance precluded relief on ineffective

- assistance claim); Mitchell v. State , 989 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must affirmatively prove prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance); see also Cox v. State , 389 S.W.3d 817, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reviewing court need n ot consider both prongs of Strickland test and can dispose of ineffectiveness claim if defendant fails to demonstrate sufficient prejudice). We overrule appellant’s fourth issue.44

Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation In her fifth and sixth issues, app ellant asserts that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding her Sixth Amend ment right to confront forensic neuropathologist Dr. Glenn Sandberg

. In her fifth issue, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not objecting to the admission into evidence of Dr. Sandberg’s report , contained within State’s Exhibit 4, the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Wolf, because it “was inadmissible under (1) the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment

. . . , (2) Crawf ord v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1345, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and (3) Tex. R. Evid. 801(d).” The record is silent as to why appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the admission of Dr. Sandberg’s report into evidence

. See Menefield , 363 S .W.3d at 593 (“An ineffective

- assistance claim must be firmly founded in the record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the meritorious nature of the claim.”) (internal quotations omitted)); Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 835 (“Ineffective assistance of

coun sel claims are not built on retrospective speculation; they must be firmly founded in the record.”) ( internal quotations omitted)). Therefore, we must presume that counsel was acting pursu ant to a sound trial strategy. See Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 833; see als o Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 813 (“There is a strong presumption that counsel’ s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable45

professional assistance.”); Crocker , 441 S.W.3d at 315 (“Because the record is silent concerning counsel’s reasons for not objecting , we must presume counsel had a valid strategy.”); Smith , 84 S.W.3d at 42 (“Without evidence of the strategy and meth ods involved concerning counsel’ s actions at trial, the court will pr esume sound trial strategy.”). As the Texas Court of Criminal A ppeals , in regard to the admission of a laboratory report, explained in Menefield , “[w]e [simply] do not know why counsel failed to raise a Confrontation Clause objection.” 363 S.W.3d at 593. “ [P]erhaps the State could (and with an objecti on would) have brought [the report’s author ] to the courtroom to testify, and counsel realize d that

cross - examining [him ] would not benefit his client.” Id. Accordingly, in the absence of a record reflecting why appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the admission into ev idence of Dr. Sandberg’s report , and given the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance, we hold that appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial counsel ’s decision not to object was reasonable. See Jackson , 877 S.W.2d at 771 (appellate court may not conclude, based on speculation, counsel ineffective when record silent about why he made decisions at trial); see also Miles , 2012 WL 2357449, at *4 (“In the absence of a reco rd reflecting why [defendant]’s counsel did not object, we hold that the record does not firmly establish deficient performa nce.”).46

In her sixth issue, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not “apply[ing] for a subpoe na for the appearance of” Dr. Sandberg because it deprived her of her constitutio nal right of confrontation. A ppellant’s brief includes only a single conclusory statement: “Should this Court find that Dr. Glenn Sandberg’s report was admissible, trial coun sel failed to secure the attendance of Dr. Glenn Sandberg to enforce Appellant’s Sixth Amen dment right to confrontation.” Because appellant offers no argument or authorities , nor any analysis or explanation , to support her assertion, we hold that she has waived her complaint that her trial counsel provided her with ineffective assistance in not “apply[ing] for a subpoena for th e appearanc e of” Dr. Sandberg. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i); Cardenas , 30 S.W.3d at 393; see also Lucio , 351 S.W.3d at 896

– 97; Ruiz , 293 S.W.3d at 693; Tufele , 130 S.W.3d at 270

– 71; see also Castellanos , 2005 WL 1981519, at *2. We overrule appellant’s fifth and sixth issues. Jury Charge In her seventh issue, appellant arg ues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in no t objecting to the trial court’s charge to the jury and not “mak[ing] a request for the inclusion of an appropriate instruction on the issue of ‘but for’ causation,” pursuant to Texas Penal Code sectio n 6.04(a), because had47

counsel requested the “‘but for’ causation instruction , ” the jury would have been prohibited from “convicting [appellant] on a theory that was contrary to the law.” Assuming without deciding that appellant wa s entitled to the above

- referenced instruction, she still must show that her tri al counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when considering prevailing professional norms. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687

– 88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064;
Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 833. Here, the record is silent as to why appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the trial court’s charge to the jury or why her trial counsel did not request the jury instruction to which she now contends she was entitled.
See Henderson v. State , 29 S.W.3d 616, 624 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (overruling defendant’s i neffective

- assistance claim, where “[t]here [was] no evidence in the record as to why [his] trial counsel did not request an instruc tion on concurrent causation”); see also Menefield , 363 S.W.3d at 593 (“An ineffective

- assis tance claim must be firmly founded in the record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the meritorious nature of the claim.”) (internal quotations omitted)); Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 835 (“Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not built on retrosp ective speculation; they must be firmly founded in the record.”) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, we must presume that counsel was acting pursu ant to a sound trial strategy. See Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 833; Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 813 (“There is a stro ng presu mption that48

counsel’ s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”); Crocker , 441 S.W.3d at 315 (“Because the record is silent concerning counsel’s reasons for not objecting, we must presume counsel had a valid strateg y.”); Smith , 84 S.W.3d at 42 (“Without evidence of the strategy and meth ods involved concerning counsel’ s actions at trial, the court will pr esume sound trial strategy.”). Accordingly, in the absence of a record reflecting why appellant’s trial counsel di d not object to the trial court’s charge to the jury or “make a request for the inclusion of an appropriate instruction on the issue of ‘but for’ causation,” pursuant to Texas Penal Code section 6.04(a), and given the strong presumption that counsel’s cond uct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance, we hold that appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial counsel’s decision not to object or to request a certa in instruction was reasonable.
See Jackson , 877 S.W.2d at 771 (appellate court may not conclude, based on speculation, counsel ineffective when record silent about why he made decisions at trial); see also Miles , 2012 WL 2357449, at *4 (“In the absence of a record reflecting why [defendant]’s counsel did not o bject, we hold that the record does not firmly estab lish deficient performance.”). We overrule appellant’s seventh issue.49

Opinion Testimony In her eighth issue, appellant arg ues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not objecting to Sergeant Hunter’s “opinion testi mony” that she “cried ‘tears of guilt’ and acted like ‘a mother who did something to her child’” because Hunter “comment[ed] directly on the credibility and guilt of [a]ppellant.”
T he record is silent as to why appellant ’s trial counsel did not object to Sergeant Hunter’s “opinion testimony.” See Lopez , 343 S.W.3d at 143

– 44 (defendant did not meet burden of proving ineffective assistance where record silent as to why trial counsel did no t object to witness testimony); se e also Menefield , 363 S.W.3d at 593 (“An ineffective

- assistance claim must be firmly founded in the record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the meritorious nature of the claim.”) (internal quotations omitted)); Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 835 (“Ineffec tive assistance of counsel claims are not built on retrospective speculation; they must be firmly founded in the record.”) ( internal quotations omitted)). Therefore, we must presume that counsel was acting pursuant to a sound trial strategy. See Bone , 77 S.W.3d at 833; Thompson , 9 S.W.3d at 813 (“There is a strong presumption that counsel’ s conduct fell within the wide range of reasona ble professional assistance.”); Crocker , 441 S.W.3d at 315 (“Because the50

record is silent concerning counsel’s reasons for not objecting, we must presume counsel had a valid strategy.”); Smith , 84 S.W.3d at 42 (“Without evidence of the strategy and meth ods involved concerning counsel’ s actions at trial, the court will presume sound trial strategy.”). Accordingly, in the absen ce of a record reflecting why appellant’s trial counsel did not object to Sergeant Hunter’s “opinion testimony” and given the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance, we hold that appella nt has failed to rebut the presumption that her trial court’s decision not to object was reasonable. See Jackson , 877 S.W.2d at 771 (appellate court may not conclude, based on speculation, counsel ineffective when record silent about why he made decisions at trial); see also Miles , 2012 WL 2357449, at *4 (“In the absence of a record reflecting why [defendant]’s counsel did not object, we hold that the record does not firmly estab lish deficient performance.”). We overrule appellant’s eighth issue. Opening Statement In her eleventh issue, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not “giv[ing] an opening statement” to the jury because this case involved “an incredibly emotional trial” and counsel “fail[ed] to attempt to focu s the jury on the facts applicable to the law.”51

In her brief , appellant summarily assert s that “[a]t the inception of this trial, trial counsel metaphorically and l iterally started on the bench. This conduct ‘fell below the objective standard of reasona bleness under pr evailing professional norms.’” She neither asserts , nor shows , that her trial counsel’s decision to not make an opening statement, an entirely discretionary and inherently tactical decision, probably caused the jury to return a guilty verd ict against her. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 36.01(b) (Vernon 2007) (opening statement optional); see also Jones v. State , No. 08

- 14

- 00122

- CR, 2017 WL 3048575, at *6

– 8 (Tex. App.

— El Paso July 19, 2017, no pet.) ( not designated for publication) (fa ilure to meet second Strickland prong where defendant did not show “ a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different if [trial counsel] had made an opening statement”); Hernandez v. State , No. 04

- 01

- 00242

- CR, 2002 WL 31465802, a t *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Nov. 6, 2002, no pet.) (no t designated for publication) (defendant who did “ not direct this court to anywhere in the record that indicates he was prejudiced by counsel’s decision not to mak e an opening statement,” not prejudiced by counsel’s actions); Hernandez v. State , No. 04

- 00

- 00151

- CR, 2000 WL 1727098, at *4 (Tex. App. San Antonio

— Nov. 22, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (defendant “cannot demonstrate the prejudice required in the second prong of the Strickla nd test” because he “has not pointed out evidence in the record which shows how an opening statement could have caused52

the jury to return a not guilty verdict”); Calderon v. State , 950 S.W.2d 121, 127 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1997, no pet.) (“Few matters during a criminal trial could be more imbued with strategic implications than the exercise of th[e] option [to give an opening statement].”); Standerford v. State , 928 S.W.2d 688, 697 (Tex. Ap p.

— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (because giving opening statement provides State preview of defen se strategy, decision to not make opening statement “valid tactical decision ”). Accordingly, we hold that appellant has not shown that she suffered prejudice by her trial counsel ’s decision not to make an opening statement. See Lad d , 3 S.W.3d at 570 (defendant’s failure to make any effort to prove prejudice from counsel’s allegedly deficient performance precluded relief on ineffective assistance claim); Mitchell , 989 S.W.2d at 748 (defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counse l must affirmatively prove prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance); see also Cox , 389 S.W.3d at 819 (reviewing court need not consider both prongs of Strickland test and can dispose of ineffectiveness claim if defendant fails to demonstrate suffici ent prejudice). We overrule appellant’s eleventh issue. Directed Verdict In her twelfth issue, appellant argues that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in not moving for a directed verdict because “[t]he evidence53

in this case was legally ins ufficient” and “[h]ad trial counsel made a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court [w]o uld have granted that motion.” Because appellant offers no argument or authorities , nor any analysis or explanation , to support her argument , we hold that she ha s waived her complaint that her trial counsel provided her with ineffective assistance of c ounsel by not moving for a directed verdict. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i); Cardenas , 30 S.W.3d at 393; see also
Lucio , 351 S.W.3d at 896

– 97; Ruiz , 293 S.W.3d at 693; Tufele , 130 S.W.3d at 270

– 71; see also Castellanos , 2005 WL 1981519, at *2. Further, having held that the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support her conviction , we note that appellant would not have been entitled to a directed verdict. See Wi lliams v. State , 937 S.W.2d 479 , 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ( challenge to trial court’s ruling on

m otion for directed verdict is challenge to sufficiency of evidence to support convic tion, and is reviewed under same standard). We overrule appellant’s twelf th issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Terry Jennings Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).