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

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-01-00350-CR

44444444444

4444 Michael E vans, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 005161, H ONORABLE JULIE H. KO CUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Appe llantMicha el Evan s ap pe al s h i s c onv i cti on f or burg l ary

of a h ab i tation (“attempted

t o co mmit an d c o mmit t ed t he ft ”) , a s ec o nd de gr ee fe lo ny. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. § 30.02 (West Supp. 2002). Appell ant was convi

cted upon hi s pl ea of gui

lty by the jury , who assessed hi s punishm

ent at fi fteen y

ears’ i mprisonm ent and a $10,000 f

in e. Points of Error Appe llantadvances

f our poi nts of error. Fi rst, he contends that the trial court erred in deny in g a m ot ion f or a directed verdict of not guil ty duri ng the pun

is hm ent phase o f

the tri al. Second, app ellant u rg es t hat his tr ial cou nsel re nder ed ineffect iveassi stance by movi ng f or a directed verdict rather than a m

is trial . Third, appel la

nt cla im s that the trial

court erred in

not granting a
m oti on f or new tria l . Fourth , appe l l an

t ave rs that t he ev

ide nce was f actual l y i ns uf f i ci en t to support h i s c on v i cti on . We w i l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt.2 Backgr ound Co unt one of

the i ndi ctmen t cha rged a ppel l an t wi th b urgl ary of a habita t ion wit h intent to comm it sex ual assaul t, a fi rst degree fel

ony. Tex . Pen. Code Ann . § 30.02 (West Supp. 2002 ) . The se con

d c oun t ch arge d a pp el l an t wi th the sam e burglary of

a hab itation (“ attempted t o co mmit and com m i tted thef t”), a se cond

degre e f elony . Id . Wh en cal l ed up on to pl ead to the

i ndi ctmen t bef ore t he ju ry, appella

nt entered a pl ea of not g ui l ty to the f i rs t cou nt and , ap

pa ren tl y m uc h to th e surpri se of every one , en tere d a plea of gui l ty to the second count. No action was taken at t ha t t ime w it h r eg ar d t o ap pe llan t ’s pl ea o f g ui lt y. The tria l procee ded a s if

both p l eas

had be en “n ot gui l ty.” S. F., t he co mplainant, t est ifi ed t hat in the ea r ly morni ng hours of J

uly 24, 2000, she was asl

eep i n he r second f

loor apartment; that she was awakened and saw a d ar k fig ur e in t he do or way o f her be dr oo m; tha t she a ske d t he man t o lea ve; and that the m an pul l ed h i s han d out of h i s pa nts a nd l ef t the doorway

. S.F. call ed “911” an

d then l ocked her bedroom door. Feari

ng that the ma

n wasstil l i n the apartme

nt, S.F. jum

ped out of he r b ed room win dow, suff ering m in or inj uries. S. F. ide ntif ie d appella

nt at t he scen

e after he h

ad been apprehen ded near t he ap ar t ment compl ex by the p olice. She lat er made a n in-co ur t ident ifi cat ion. She d et er mined t hat t he mone y she had in the apart men

t, appro xi mately twent y doll

ars, was m

is si ng. Lesl in Mei ssne r, a fri end, asserted that sh e h ad l ef t a dollar and so me change on S.F. ’s table and n ear S.F.’s purse the previ

ous eveni ng. Au st in Police Of

fi cer Derek Israe l t estif

ie d to apprehen

din g appella nt near the apartme

nt complex aft er re ceiving a d ispat ch.3 The tria l courtre f us ed to pe rm i t th e S tate

t o o ffer so me ext ra neo us mat t er s re lating to sexual off enses at the guil

t/inn ocence stage. T he r ea ft er , at t he co nc lus io n o f t his s t ag e o f t he t r ial, the Stat e wai

ved an d aban doned count one. The tri al cou rt th en dul y ad moni sh ed ap pe l l an t of the con se que nc esof his guil ty plea to co unt t wo . T he t rial t hen pr oc eed ed t o t he pu nishment stage where the ex traneous off

en ses were adm itted and appel

la nt made a j udic ia l co nfe ss i on . Th

e c as e w as

su b m i tted to th e j ur

y wi th instr uct ions t o findap pe l l an t gui l ty upon hi s p l ea of gu ilt y t o co un t t wo an d t o as se ss pu nish men t in ac corda n ce wi th th e i n str uc ti on s on

pu n i sh men t. Proce du re The i nstant ca se prese

nted to the tri al

courtan un usua l si tua ti on with di ff erent pleas to dif f er en t cou n ts i n the sa me i ndi ctmen t. The procedur

e was so mewhat irre gular wit h re gar d t o t he gui l ty ple a. As the procedure provided by l aw under li

es ou r disposit ion of some of appe ll ant’s poi n ts o f er ro r, we t ak e no t e t her eo f.

As the C ourt o f Cr iminal A pp ea ls re iter at ed in Barfield v. State , 6 3 S .W. 3d 4 46 ( Te x. Cr im. A pp . 20 01 ), th

e statu te p rov i di n g f or b i f ur ca ted-tr i al proc ed ure ap pl i esonl y to plea s of

not gui l ty b ef ore the jury . Id . at 449-50; Tex. Code Crim . Proc. An n. art 37.07, § 2( a) (West 1981 & Supp. 200 2) . Whe n an ac cus ed e nt er s a p lea o f guilty t o a felony ch arg e b ef

or e t he jur y, t he proceedin gs be com e a un i tary t r ial. Carr

oll v. State , 975 S.W .2d 630 , 631 (Tex. C ri m . App. 1998 ); Ricondo v. Sta te , 634 S.W.2d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim . App. 198 2) ( op. on reh’g ); Basaldua v

. State , 481 S. W.2d 851 , 85 3 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 72) ; see also Te x. C od e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann. arts. 26.13, 26.14, 27.13 (Wes t 198 9) . A p lea o f guilty t o a felony b ef orea j ur y ad m i ts th e e x i ste n ce of al l f ac ts4

ne ces sary to establi sh

guilt and t he int r o du ct io n o f ev ide nc e is o nly t o en ab le t he jur o r s t o int ellig en t ly exercise t he dis cr et io n ve st ed in t he m by law in ass ess i ng p uni sh men t. Carr oll , 975 S.W.2d at 631- 32; Dardenv. State , 430 S.W.2d 494, 495 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 196 8) . T he o nly i ssu e is pu nishment when a defend ant ent er s his plea o f guilty o r no lo co nt ende re , w itho ut waiving t rial by j ury . See Te x. Code Cr im. P r o c. Ann . ar t . 27 . 02 ( We st 19 89 ) . He sho uld t he n be ad mo nish ed as r eq uir ed by ar t icle 27 . 13 in accordance wi

th arti cle 26.1 3. Id. arts. 26 .13, 27.1 3. If a def endan t persists i

n h i s pl ea, a j ury shoul d be

em pan eled to he ar ev

i den ce a nd a sse ss p

uni sh men t onl y . Id . art. 26.14. Af ter t he ev ide nc e is presented i n a un itary proceedin

g, the trial court form

al ly charges t he j ury th at th e def en da n t h as pers i ste d i

n h i s p l ea de sp i te admo nishment by t he t rial co ur t as t o t he co nsequences of

his plea a nd his rig ht s und er t he law, t hat t he t rial co ur t has fo und t he de fendant men t ally competent, that t he pl

ea has b een f

reely and v oluntarily ma de, and thatthe j ury

is in structed to find t he de fe nd an t gu ilt y, an d t o as se ss pu nish men t in acc or danc e wit h t he o t her instr uct ions in t he cou rt ’s charge See Basaluda , 481 S.W .2d at 85 5; 8 Mich ael McC ormi

ck, et al ., Texas Practice: Criminal Forms and Trial Manual § 9 8.0 3 ( 10 th

ed. 199 5); see also Holland v . State , 761 S.W.2d 307, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 198 8); Addicks v . State , 15 S.W .3d

60 8, 6 12 (Tex . A

pp .—H ouston

[1 4th Di st.] 2000 , pet. ref

’d). In Fram e v. State , 615 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981 ), the guil ty plea proceedin gs wer e er ro neo usly bifurcat ed, but t he err or wa s n ot rev ersi bl e error. Id. at 767 n.1; see also Ricondo, 634 S.W.2d at 842. Here, t he trial court ’s descri

bed act ion, taken when

confronted1 In the i nstant case, the requi

red admoni

shm ent was not giv

en un t il t he clo se o f the guil t/inn ocence stage

of the tri al . Palacios v. State, ma de cl ear that the admoni shm ent should precede t he acc ept ance of t he gu ilty plea befo re t he jur y, but no r ever sible err or was pr ese nt ed w he nth e adm onis hm ent was m

ade af ter bot h si

des re st ed a nd

befo re t he ca se w as su bmitt ed t o t he jur y, and t he defendan

t made no clai

m of h arm by the “lateness”

of the adm

onis hm ent. 556 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1977 ). 5 wi th a uni que si tua ti on, wa s h

arm l es s error, i f

err orat al l , und er the ci rcum stan ces . See Tex. R. App. P. 44.42 (b). 1 Appel

la nt make s no compl

ai nt on appeal

in this regard. Motion for Instructed Ver dict Fi rs t, app ellant u rg es t hat t he “tri al courterred

by not g ran ti ng ap pe l l an t’s moti on f or a d ire ct ed ve r dic t du r ing t he pu nish men t ph as e” o f t he t r ial.

The Stat e had cal

le d a nu m be r of wit ne ss es as t o t he co nvic t io n o f ap pe llant fo rpu blic
mas turb ati

on and si m i l ar i nc i den ts. The prosec utor then cal l ed Vi vi an Lewi s He i

ne , a sex c ouns elor, and an operator of

an outpati en t me ntal he al th f aci l i ty. She di d n

ot kn ow appella

nt, had not treat ed him, and was

not a wi tnes s to the of

f en se cha rged. N ear the en

d of her di re ct t est im

ony, sh e was asked what she m

eant i n usi ng the term “

vul nerabl e hum an b ei ng. ” In he r r amb ling , mo st ly unr esp ons iveansw er , she clos ed w ith t he st at ement : “I wo uld g o s o fa r a s t o s ay this w asn’t t he fi rst t ime he wasi n that apar

tme nt.” Th e tri al courtim mediately sust ained appellan

t’s obj ec ti on a

nd , up on re qu est, instr uct ed t he jur y “to disre gar d t he last statem en t.” Ap pel l an t’s c ouns el

then moved f or a “di rected verdict,” which

was overrul ed. In all butthe most extr eme cases, the im pro per admi ssion of an

extraneou s offen

se can be cu red by gra nti ng an obj ec ti on and a j ury i nstructi on to di sreg ard. Fuller v. State , 827 S.W.2d 919, 92 6 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 92 ) . A ju ry inst ruc t io n is in su fficie nt o nly i n those ex trem e ca ses wh ere6

it appears that the ev ide nc e is cle ar ly cal cul ated to in

fl am e the m in ds of the j urors and is

of such character as t o s ugg est t he impos sibil ity o f withd ra wing t he impre ssio n prod uc ed ontheir mi

nds. Ladd v. State , 3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 99) ; Gardne r v. State , 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (T ex. Crim

. App. 1987). The in

stant case was n

ot such an extreme c ase. The wi

tness’s answer was non-responsi

ve, speculative , and did not even ass ert t hat appella n t had pr eviou sly been in the apa rt ment ill

ega lly. Mo re ove r, a wit ness’ s inadve rt ent r efe r en ce t o an ex t r an eo us o ffen se is ge ne r ally cured by a prom pt i nstructi on to di sreg ard, a s i n the i nstant ca se. See Rojas

v. State , 986 S.W.2d 241, 250 (Te x. Cri m . A pp. 199 8). A

ppe l l an t did n ot move f ora m is trial , but now insi sts that t he trial cou rt s h oul d h av e g ra n ted h i s m oti on f or a di re cte d verdi

ct. A challenge t o t he t rial co ur t ’s r ulingon a m ot ion f or an in structed o r directed

verdict of n ot gu i l ty i s i n ac tual i ty a ch al l enge to the s

uf f i ci ency of the ev i den ce to sup port t he co nvictio n. Madden v. State , 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 90) ; see also Cook v. State , 858 S.W.2d 467, 47 6 (Tex . Cri

m . App. 1993 ). In the in stant case, appella

nt had en tered a g uilt y ple a t o t he se co nd co un t an d t he o nly is sue f orthe jury

was that of punishm

ent. When

appella nt made hi s m ot ion, the State had

not rested it s ca se at t he pe na lt y st ag e o f t he t r ial. T he t r ial c o ur t did no t ab us e it s dis cretion i n overrulin

g a suf fi ci ency of e vi den ce c l ai m . To hav

e done so woul

d ha ve resu l ted i n a n acqui ttal. Cf. United States
v. Burks , 437 U.S . 1 ( 197 8); Greene v. Massey , 4 37 U .S . 1 9 ( 197 8) . Ap pellant co uld have withdrawn

hi s guilty ple a and ha d a pl ea of not gui l ty e ntere d at an

y tim e b ef ore th e j ur

y re ti re d to del ib erate. McWher

ter v. Sta te , 571 S.W.2d

31 2, 31 3 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 197 8) ; 43 Geo rg e E . D ix &7

Robe rt O. Daw so n, Texas Practice: Crimi nal Practice and Procedure § 34.87 (2d ed . 20 01 ) . T his ap pe l l an t did n ot do. Appe llantals o co mpla ins in his a r gu men t un de rt his p o in t o f err or th at he w asnot giv en no t ice by t he St at e t ha t it in tended to introduce an extraneous off ense (Ms . Hein

e’s rem ark) as required

by Rule 40 4( b) o f t he T ex as Ru les o f E vid en ce an d a r t icle 37 . 07 ( 3) ( g) . T ex . Co de Cr im. Proc. Ann . art . 37.0 7(3)( g) (West S upp. 200 2). T he record does n ot r eveal a d ef en se req ue st f or such n otice as re qui red b y the statutes, an

d there wasno tri al

obj ection on th

i s b asis. A co mplaint on appe al m ust com port wi th a tri al obj ection or nothi

ng i s pre sen ted f or revi ew. Rezac v

. State , 782 S.W.2d 869, 87 0 (Tex . Cri

m . Ap p. 1990 ). Mo re ove r, t his sepa ra t e ar gument re nder s t he po int
m ul tif arious. SeeWood v

. State , 18 S. W.3 d 64 2, 649 n.6 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 200 0) . T he first po int of error is overruled. Ineffec tive Assistance Appe llantrecogn

izes the f uti l i ty of his i ni tia l poi nt of error b y c o ntendi

ng that “appel la nt’s trial counsel rendered i

nef fecti ve ass is tance by movi ng f or a directed

ve rdi ct i ns tea d of
m ovi ng f or a m i stri al i n the pun i sh men t pha se of the tri al .” A de f en da nt i n a cri m i na l ca se ha s a con st itu t iona l right t o r eas ona bly eff ect ive ass i stan ce of coun sel . Stafford v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 506 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1991 ). Howev

er, a defen dant is not entitled to errorless counsel or co unsel

whose competen

cy is j udge d b

y h i n ds i gh t. Id. In Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 468, 687 (1984), t he Un ited States Suprem e Cour t promulgated a two- pronged test t o determin e whether represen

tation was so in

ade qu at e t ha t it vi olated a de fendant ’s S ixth Amendment right to counsel . The Strickland an alys is has b een adopted8

in Te xas and ap plies t o cla ims ar ising und er ar t icle I , s ec t io n 10 o f t he T exas Co ns t itu t ion. Hernandez

v. State , 72 6 S.W .2d 53, 5 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1986 ). Under th e two-prong ed tes t, a convi cted defen

dant mus t fi rst show that hi s counsel ’s perf ormance was de f i ci en t, an d s ec ond , sh

ow that the def

i ci en t perf orma nc e prejudiced th

e def en se. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Jacks on v. State , 877 S.W .2d

768 , 77 1 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 199 4). Th e d ef

en da nt h asthe bu rde n to prove a cl

ai m of ineffect iveass i stan

ce of coun sel by a prep onderance of

the evi den ce. McFarland

v. State , 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Cri

m . App. 1996 ). I f the defend ant f ai l s to make th

e r eq ui re d s h owi n g of b oth def i ci en t perf orma nc e an d prej udice, h

i s cl ai m m ust f al l . Id . The re view o f a claim of ineffect ive assist anc e o f co un se l is hig hly d efe r en t ial. Strickland, 486 U.S. at 689. A revi ewi ng c ourt must indulge a stro ng presu mption that tr ial cou nsel’s conduct f al l s wi thi n a wide ran ge of reas onab l e repr

ese ntati on. McFarland

, 928 S.W.2d at 500. The asse ssment of whether a de fen dant recei ved effect ive assist ance of c ou nsel must be made a cco rd ing to t he fa ct s o f e ach cas e. We assess the tot al ity

of counsel ’s represen

tation rather than his or her is olated acts or om

i ssi ons. Strickland, 48 6 U. S. at 689 ; Oestr ick v. State , 939 S.W.2d 232, 239 (T ex. App.—A usti n 19 97, pet. ref

’d). While a single e gr egio us e rr or of c ommission o r o mission may be suf f i ci en t, re v i ewi n g c our ts a reh es i tan t t o declare counse l i

nef fecti ve b ased on a si

ngle alle ged
m i sca l cul ati on. Thompso n v. State , 9 S.W .3d 808 , 813, 81 4 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1999 ). Wh en claiming ineff

ect ive assist ance for faili ng t o o bj ect on the proper b asis, a defend ant mus t de mo nst r at e t ha t if t r ial c o un se l ha d c ho se n t he r igh t ba sis for his objec t ion, the trial courtwould ha

ve com m i tted error i

n re f usi ng to su stai

n the obj ection. Cf. Vaughn v . State , 93 1 S.W.2d 564, 56 6 (Tex . Cri

m. App. 199 6); Brow

n v. State , 6 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.—Tyl er9

1999, pe t. re f

’d ). A ppe l l an t ha s m ad e n o ef f ort to demons

trate tha t i f hi s tri al cou ns el ha d m ove d f or a m i str i al ra th er th an f or a n i n str uc ted v erdi ct, t he trial

court would ha

ve erred i n den yi ng the m is trial
m oti on. The g en

er al ru l e is th at a com pl ai n i n g p ar ty , i n ord er to pres er v e error f or a pp el l ate r ev iew , mu st fir st o bje ct t o t he t es t imo ny, and if the obj ection i s sustai ned, m ust the n a sk f or a j ury i ns truc ti on t o d isreg ar d; if the instr uct ion is given, coun sel m ust the n m ove f or a m i stri al . Nethery
v. State , 692 S. W.2d 686 , 70 1 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 85) ; Barletta v . State , 994 S. W.2 d 70 8, 714 (T ex. App. —T exar kana 19 99 , pe t. ref’d) ; Smith v. Stat

e , 959 S.W.2d1, 1 3 ( Te x . A pp .—W ac o 19 97 , pe

t. ref ’d). T his proper m

ethod of pres erv ati on of

error sh oul d be use d where a wi

tness m akes ref erence to ot her cri

me s and i n doi ng s o im pli es that the def

endan t comm i tted them. Coe v. State , 683 S.W.2d 431, 43 6 (Tex . Cri

m . App. 1984 ). Wh en an ac cu se d h as his objec t ion su st ained a nd h i s req ue st f or a j ur y i n str uc ti on to di sreg ard honored by

the trial court , but fai

ls to ma ke a mi strial motion, h

e has recei ved al l the rel ie f requested, and n

ot hi ng i s p res en

ted f or revi ew. Cook

, 85 8 S. W.2d at 473 ; Adams v. Sta te , 685 S.W.2d 661 , 6 70 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 985 ). Mo re ove r, t est imony refer ring t o o r implyi

ng t he exi stence of a n ext ra neo us o ffense, if erro r, is or dinar ily cur ed bya

tim el y i nstructi on of

the tri al court to di sreg ard. Coe , 68 3 S . W. 2d at 43 6. I t is pres umed that the jury foll owe d t he tr ial

cou rt ’s instruct ions. Colbur

n v. State , 96 6 S. W.2d 511 , 52 0 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 98) ; Gardner, 730 S.W.2d at 696 . I n t he inst ant cas e, an inst ru ct ion t o d isreg ar d wa s given.

If trial cou n se l h ad mov ed f or m i str i al , ther e w oul

d n ot b e “ a r ea son

ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty th at, but f or couns el ’serror, the resul ts would hav

e been dif feren t.” Strickland, 466 U .S. at 689. If10

trial counsel had follow ed t he o rd er of p ro gr essio n and mad e a mist r ial mo t io n, t he t r ial c o ur t wo uld not have e rr ed in o ver ru ling i t. Th i s w asa p l ea

of gu ilt y bef

o r e t he jur y pr o ce ed ing wh er e t he o nly issue w as p unishment . T he o bject ion wa s dire ct ed t o a single unr esp ons ive st at ement by a witness who had n o personal kn

owledgean

d w as cl ea rl y sp ecul ati n g. Ev en wi th proper pr ese rva tion of e rror, t he trial cou rt’ s i ns truc ti on to d

i sr eg ard cu red an y pre j udi ci al ef f ec t of the statem

en t. Arriola v

. State , 969 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. App.—Beaum ont 1998, pet . ref’d) (ci

ting Coe , 683 S.W .2d at 43 6). Appe llantwou l d n

ot have be en ent itled t o ha ve t he motion f or mi strial sustain ed i f i t had been ma de. See Aguian o v. State , 7 06 S .W. 2d 7 59, 763 (T ex. App. —S an Ant onio 198 6, no pet.). “Mistrial is a re med y appr opri ate

f or a n arr owcl ass of h

igh ly prejudi ci al and i ncurabl e error. ” Wood, 18 S.W.3d at 648. Appe llant’s c laim of ineffective a ssist ance of c ou nsel is wit hou t merit . T he se co nd poi nt of error is overrule d. Motion for New Tr ial In hi s thi rd point of error, appell

ant contends that t he “

trial court erredby not gr ant ing appellant’s post-t rial

motion f or a new trial .” Appel

la nt has n ot advan ced any sepa rat e ar gument under thi s p oi nt of er ro r. He ha s ap par ent ly conso lidat ed a ny ar gument wit h t he ar gument sup po rt ing t he fo ur t h po int o f err or dea ling wit h a claim of fact ual su ffi ciency o f the evi

dence. In the f

irst two par agr aphs of t hat ar gument , a ppe llantas serts th at h i s g ui l ty plea wa s ente red wi thou t con sul tation wi th his tr ial cou nsel; and t hat t he plea was not volu nt ar y “becau se he was not aware that if count two had been tried to t he j ury h

e could h ave requested a

charge on t he lesser-incl

uded offense

of cri mi nal trespa ss.” No a uth ori ty is cite d and t he ar gument is not furt her adva nced . T he ph ras e “ moti on f or new trial” i s not men

tioned and there i s n

o dem onstra tion that the tria l courtab us ed it s d isc r et io n in2 Appe llant p leade d no t guilt y to t he first co unt of t he indict ment w hile rep re sent ed by t he

sa me c o un se l. 11 ove rr ulingthe n

ew trial m otion —the stan dard f or r ev ie w i

n s uch matters. See Rent v

. State , 982 S.W.2 d 382, 3 84 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1998 ). An exam i na ti on of the moti on f or n ew tri al f oun d i n th e re cord sh ow s that several grounds we re a

dvan ce d there i n f orthe re l i ef

reque sted. O ne

of the groun

ds states: “

VII. Defend ant did not makea knowi

ng an d volun tary plea of gui

lty . Defen

dant fel t he had n o choice but to ple ad gui l ty due to his l

ack of conf

ide nce i n h i s tri al coun sel .” 2 T his is no t t he sa me contention adv anced in h i s a pp el l ate br ief. A ppe l l an t si m pl y mak estwo re cord

ref ere nc esto the

he ari ng on th e m oti on f or ne w t r ial. One referen

ce was to appell

ant’s testim

ony tha t he deci ded to plead gui lty to count two of th e i n di ctm en t wh en th e i n di ctm en t wa s r ea d to h im

in the presence of the jury, and he di d so withouttell

in g hi s trial counsel . The other reference wa s to appella nt’s testim

ony tha t he was un aw ar e t ha t if

he ha d pl eade d n ot gui l ty a nd i f the evi den ce s upported i

t, he c oul d ha

ve had a j ury i nstructi on on c

ri m i na l trespa ss. Appell

ant has not co mpl

ied wi th the briefi

ng rules. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Even if h

e had com

pli ed, t her e is no sho win g t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in overruli ng the m ot ion f or new trial . The third poi nt of error is overrul ed. Factual Sufficiency In his four t h po intof e rr or , a ppe llantaver s t hat t he “evide nce w as fac t ually insuffi cient to support a verdict of guilty on count two .” “Factual suf fi ci ency is not pr operl

y rai sed wh ere app el lant’s bri ef m

erely cl ai ms in suf fi ci ency without setting out the pro per standard of revi ew, analyzing wh

y the f ac ts f al l sh ort of tha t sta nd ard , or discu ssing t he auth oriti

es u pon w hi ch he rel i ed.”12

Moon v. State , 44 S.W.3d 589, 593 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’ d) (citi ng McD uff v
. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997); and Naff v. State , 9 46 S .W. 2d 5 29, 531 (T ex. App.—F ort Wor t h 199 7, no p et .) ). Assuming th at a pp el l an t h as met th e f ore goi n g r eq ui re men ts and pr o pe r ly bri efed the

is sue, we are conf

ronted with the questi on whether factual suf fi ci ency r ev iew is appl ic abl e here.

“ Clew is v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)], and factual suf fi ci ency reviewcl early

appl ie s to the basi

c question of

the adequacy of the evidence to prove the elements of the off ense. ” 43 G eo rge E. Dix & Robe rt O. Daws on, Texas Practice: Cr iminal Practice and Procedure § 31.14 0 (2d e d. 2001 ) (em pha si s ad ded). As n

ot ed earl i er, a pl ea of gui l ty b ef ore the j ury in a felonycase admi

ts t he existence of all

elem ents necessary to est abl

ish guilt , a nd in suc h cas es t he i ntroduc tion

of e vi den ce b y the State i s onl y to enab l e the

j ury to determ

i ne pun i sh men t. Holland , 761 S. W.2d at 312 ; Darden , 430 S.W.2d at 495. The State was not required to establis h the f actual suf fi ci ency of t he evidenc e in suc h cas es. Appe llantacknowledges the i mportance of the gui

lty ple a in su ch ca se s w he n he st at es in a r gu men t : “ Abs en t ap pe llant ’s gu ilt y ple a, t he ev ide nc e w as fac t ua lly i ns uf f i ci en t to support a con

vi cti on f or burg l ary

of a ha bi tation wi th i nten t to comm

i t thef t.” In ca se s l i ke th e i n sta n t o n e, wh er e th e de fendant plead s gu ilty befor e t he jur y in a felony case, the pl ea

of g uilty is co nclusive as t o t he de fendant ’s gu ilt and t her e is no que st ion o f the suf fi ci ency of the ev i den ce. Ex parte Ma rtin , 747 S.W .2d 789 , 79 2 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 198 8) ( op. on reh ’g); Ex parte Williams , 703 S.W.2d674, 67 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1986 ); Turnips eed v. Stat e , 609 S .W.2d 798 , 80 0-0 1 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 80) ; Addicks v . State , 15 S.W.3d 608 , 612 (Tex . A pp. —H ous ton

[14th D i st.] 2000 , pet. ref ’d); Stahle v. St

ate , 9 70 S .W. 2d 6 82, 688 (T ex.3 In Wilson v. State , 15 S.W.3d544 (Tex. App.—Dal la s 1999, pet. ref’d), the court hel d that factual su f f i ci en cy rev i ew doe s n ot ap pl y to a f ac t f i nd er’ s dete rm

i na ti on a t the pun i sh men t stageof a bifurca t ed t rial t hat t he evi dence proves b ey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt that the defe

ndan t commi tt ed an unadj udicated e

xtran eous of f en se. Id . a t 548 -4 9. The co ur t re aso ned t hat t he co nsider at ions unde rlying

a fac tual suf fi ci ency r ev iew ar e n o t ap plic ab le to the pun i sh men t pha se of the tri al wh ere t he defen dant has b een conv

icted and the i ssue of pun

is hm ent wi thin a set range i s the

onl y i ssue. Id . The court did a

cknowl edge that a fact ual su ffi ciency re view might be ap pr o pr iat e c o nc er ning ce r t ain is sues at t he p unis hment pha se o f a bi f urc ate d tri

al such asa m urder d ef en da nt’ s s udd en pa ss i on or an aggra va ted ki dna ppi ng d ef endan t’s re l eas e of

a vi cti m i n a saf e pl ace . Id . at 549 n .5. 13 App.—Dal

la s 19 95 , pe

t. re f ’d ). W e c on cl ud e th at a fact ual su ffi

ciency re view is no t app licable in the in stant case. 3 The f

ourt h poin

t o f error is

overruled. The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.

__________________________________________ John F . Oni on, Jr., Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Patte rs on a nd On i on * Af fi rmed File d: Api

rl 11, 2002 Do No t Publis

h

* Bef ore Jo hn F . On io n, Jr . , Pr es idin g J ud ge ( r et ire d) , Co ur t o f Cr iminal Appeals , si t t ing by ass i gnm en t. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).