NO. 07-06 -030 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JU NE 27, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JONAT HAN L. W HIT FIELD, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 11 OF B EXA R CO UNT Y; NO . 860 070; HO NO RA BLE J O AN N DE HO Y OS, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON F o ll o win g a p le a o f

n o tgu il t y, A p p e ll a n t , Jo n a t h a n L . W h it f ie ld , wa s co n vic t e d b y a jur y for d ri v ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. Pu nis hment w as ass ess e d at si x months co nfinement, sus pended in fav or

of communi ty

su per v is ion , and a $5 00 fine, w hic h w as not s uspen ded. Present ing tw o poi nts of er ro r, Appel lan t mai ntai ns (1 ) the t rial cour t er re d i n fail ing to2

condu ct a s eparate p uni shmenthear ing after the jur y found him gui lty , and ( 2) tr ial co unsel w as i ne ffec ti v e i n fai l i ng t o fi l e a mo ti on t o di s mi s s for l ac ko f a s pe ed y

t r i al . W e affi r m. As Appel lan t doe s n ot c hal len g e the su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce, onl y

thos e facts neces sar

y to dis pose of his poi nts of er ro r w il l be di sc uss ed. On A ug ust16, 2003, App ellantw as initially

stopp ed for a traf

f ic v iolati o n. Af

ter he was unab le to prod uce h is dr iv er ’s l ic ense and p ro of of i nsurance, Officer

Pag ola as ked him to ex ithi s v ehi cl e. App ellantadm itted he ha d con sum ed two beers, an d Of f icer Pagola performe d f ield sobr iety tes ts , a fte r w hic h he conc lud ed th at A ppel lan t w as int ox ic ated. Ap pel lan t w as ar re ste d and subs eq uentl y ch arg ed w it h dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. App e lla n t’ s c ase w as ev entual ly

tri ed to a jur

y on Apr il 12, 2006. T he jur y retur ned a v erdic t of

“g uil ty ” and t he Cou rtas ses sed puni shment . App ellant ’s first po int of conte ntion is that the trial court erred in failing to condu ct a s eparate p uni shmenthear ing pri or to sent enci ng . He arg ues that after the j ur y retur ned a g uil ty v erdict and w as dis charg ed, t he tr ia l co urt di d notafford hi m the oppor tuni ty to prese nt pu nishm entev iden ce. W e disagree. Fo llow ing th e jury ’s d ischarge, the t rial court found Appel lan t el igible for c ommunity su per v is ion , and the Stat e made i ts re commendat ion to the c our t. The c our

t as ked: Court: Is th ere an y

legal reaso n w hy I cann ot pron oun c e s e n ten ce, Mr. Mc Gi nni s? Ok ay . Al l ri g ht. Bot h s ide s restand cl ose on puni shment ? [Defense coun sel]: Yes, Your Honor. [Prose cuto r]: Y es, Your Honor.T o prese rve e rr o r on th e lack of a pun ishm enthea ring, a defend antmusttimely 1 re q uestsu ch a hear ing , obj ectto the l ack of one, or ti mely

fil e a mot ion for n ew

tr ial bas ed on th at omi ss ion and sp e cifythe ev ide nce he w oul d hav e present ed atthe puni shment hear ing . Lopez

v. Sta te , 96 S.W .3d 4 06, 4 13- 14 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2002, pet. ref’d) . 3 The tr ial co urt t hen foll ow ed the State’ s rec ommendati on and pronounc ed s entenc e. After th e de ta ils of

Ap p e lla n t’ s co m m u n it y sup e rvisio n w e re ta ke n c a r e o f , t h e pro ce e d in gs cl osed. N o obj ect ion w as made to the i mposi ti on of sen tenc e. W e di sag re e wit h Appe ll ant t hat h e w as not a fforded an oppor tuni ty to present puni shmentev ide nce. The record demons trates thatthe tr ial courtasked both si des if they w er e ready

to re st and cl ose the p uni shmentphas e, t o w hic h bot h s ide s a nsw ered a f f irm a ti vely. Neve rt h e le ss , we will a d d re ss th e righ t t o a se p a r a t e p u n ish m e n t h e a rin g. Th e C o u rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has hel d tha t t he r ig ht t o a s eparate p uni shment hear ing i s a s ta tutory

r ig ht t hat c an be w aiv ed. Vidaur ri v. Sta te , 49 S.W .3d 8 80, 8 86 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t l o d g e a n o bj e c t i o n c o mp l a i n i n g t h a t he w as deni ed a separate puni shment hear ing . Nor does his moti on for new tr ial co ntai n a g ro und on th a t b a s i s . B y h i s mo t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l , A p p e l l a n t o n l y a l l e g e d t h a t t h e v e rd i ct w as 1 cont ra ry to the l aw

and ev ide nce. Us e of

a moti on for

newtri al to preser

v e er ro r is l imi ted to th ose rare case s w here a def end antis no t af forde d an opp ortun ity

t o obje ct to the lack of a hear ing . See Iss a v . St ate , 826 S.W .2d 1 59, 1 61 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ( deny ing the defendan t a n o ppor

tuni ty to obj ectby

rev oki ng probati on and impos ing se ntenc e i n one decl arati on) . Here, Appel lan t w as g iv en an oppor tuni ty to presentev ide nce, but did not.4

See Pear

son v. State , 994 S.W .2d 176 , 179 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). Point o f error one is ov er ru led . By hi s s econd an d f inal poi nt, Appel lan t c omplai ns that his tr ial co unsel w as i n e f fe c t i v e i n n o tf i l i n g a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s fo r v i o l a t i o n o f

h i s r i g h tt o a s p e e d y

t r i a l . W e dis ag re e. A c lai m of ine ff ect iv eness is rev iew ed under the stand ard set out i n Str ickl and v. W ashi ngton , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 205 2, 80 L.E d.2 d 674 (1984 ). U nde r Str ickl and , a defendant mus t es tabl is h tha t ( 1) co unsel ’s per formance w as defici ent ( i. e. , fell bel ow an obj ect iv e s tandard of reason abl enes s), and ( 2) there i s a reason abl e probabi li ty thatbut for c ounse l’ s defici ent perfor mance, the resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different, a rea so n a b le probabi li ty bei ng a probabi li ty

su ff ic ien t t o under mine confide nce in the outc ome. Ry

lan der v. Sta te , 101 S.W .3d 107, 11 0 ( Tex .C ri mApp. 2 003) ; see a lso Her nandez v. Sta te , 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 55 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) . In other w ords, a de fendant mu st dem onst rate by a prepo nde rance of the evidence t h a tt he d ef icient pe rforma nce pr eju dice d his defense. Mitch ell v. Sta te , 68 S. W .3d 640 , 642 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 2); Thom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex .C rim. Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ). F ail ure to make t he re q uired s how ing of eit her defic ien t per

formance or s u f

f ic ien t preju dic e defeats the ine ff ect iv eness cl aim. Thom pson , 9 S. W .3 d at81 4 , c it in g Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 70 0. The adeq uacy

of defense c ounse l’ s a ss is tanc e i s b ased upon t h e t o ta lity of the re present ati on ra ther than by i sol ated act s o r omis si ons of tri al couns el. Id . Al thoug h the cons ti tuti onal ri g ht to couns el ensures the r ig ht t o reason abl y effect iv e c ounse l, i t doe s n ot5

g uarantee er ro rl e ss c o u n sel w hose compet ency or ac curacy

of re present ati on i s t o be jud g ed by

hi ndsi g ht. Inghamv. Sta te , 679 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 09 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) ; see also Ex Parte Kun kle , 852 S.W .2d 499, 505 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) . Appel lat e rev iew of t rial counse l’s repre sent ation is hig hly def eren tial and presum es tha t coun sel’s cond uct fell w it hin the w ide ra ng e of reason abl e and professi onal represent ati on. See Andrew s v. State , 1 5 9 S . W . 3 d 9 8 , 1 0 1 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 05) . S e e a lso Bone v . St ate , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) . To defeat t h e presumpt ion of re asona ble professi onal ass is tanc e, any all eg ati on of i neffect iv eness must be firml y founded in the re cord, and t he re cord must a f

f irm a ti v ely

demons trate t he al leg ed i neffect iv eness . Ma llett v. State , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) . See also Thom pson , 9 S . W . 3 d a t8 1 3 - 1 4. How ev er , w here the al leg ed dereli cti ons are er ro rs of omi ss ion outs ide of the record rather tha n errors of

comm ission revealed in the trial record , collate ral attack m ay be th e v ehicle by w hic h to dev elo p a d etai led record of the all eg ed i neffect iv eness . See Free m an v. State , 125 S.W .3d 5 05, 5 06- 07 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) . See gen erally Ma ss ar o v . U nited States , 538 U .S. 500, 123 S. Ct . 169 0, 16 94 1 5 5 L .E d.2d 714 ( 2003) ( sta ti ng thatw hen a c lai m of ineffecti v eness is rai sed on di re ct appeal , a tr ial record i s u sual ly not dev elo ped for estab lishing such a claim). At the time Ap pellan t f iled his Mo ti on for Speedy

T ri al, he ind icated thatone w itness had mov ed to N ebra sk a a n d he h ad no w ay to communi cat e w it h her , and a s econd w itness h ad ch anged her num ber an d he had no w ay to con tact h er. He alleges on direct app eal th at th ose wi tne sses wo u ld have prov ided favorable test imo ny; how ever, he did6

not s peci fy in his moti on for speed y tr ial thatthe w it ness es w oul d hav e offered rele v ant and mate ri al tes ti mony for hi s d efense and that due di li g ence w as ex er ci sed in loc ati ng the w it ness es. This w oul d hav e sati sfied the prej udi ce pro ng of the Bar ker bala ncing test appl ied i n as ses si ng vi ola ti ons of the S ixth A mendment r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial . See B ar

ker v. W ing o , 407 U .S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct . 2182, 33 L. Ed.2d 101 (1 9 72) ( hol din g thatan acc used’ s a ll eg ati on that he w as deni ed th e r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial req uires the b ala nci ng of four fact ors, to- w it : (1) l eng th of the del ay ; ( 2) reason for t he del ay ; ( 3) as ser ti on of the ri g ht; and ( 4) preju dic e to the a cc used to de ter mine w hether his r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial w as v iol ated) . See al

so Phi pps v. State , 630 S.W .2d 942, 947 (Tex .C ri m.App. [Panel Op. ] 1982) . Mo re ov er , t he mere fail ure of coun sel to file app ropri ate p re tr ial moti ons is not cat eg or ic all y

deemed ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce. Passm or e v . Stat e, 61 7 S. W .2d 6 82, 6 85 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1981) . This r ule appl ies to a moti on to dis mis s based on an all eg ati on of a l ack of a s peedy tr ial . See M ar ti nez v. Sta te , 824 S.W .2d 688 , 690 (Tex.App .–E l Paso 199 2, pe t. ref ’d). As pr ev iou sl y

note d, in his moti on for new tr ial , Ap pel lan t onl y

al leg ed th at t he ve rd ic twa s co n t ra ry t o t h e l a w a n d e vid e n c e . He d id n o tin c lu d e a gro u n d o n in e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

coun sel nor provide a n a f f id a v it f rom h is trial coun sel explaining his mo tiv ation for not f iling a m o t io n t o dismiss. W ithou t a record explaining coun sel’s act ion s, Appel lan t has not ov er come the presumpt ion that couns el’ s t act ic s w ere s ound7

tr ial st ra teg y . See Jai

le v. State , 836 S.W .2d 680, 687 (Tex .App. –El Pas o 1992, no p et.) (e x pla ini ng thatco unsel ’s fail ur e to mov e for d ismis sal for a sp eedy tr ial v iol ati on may hav e been strateg ichopi ng thatthe compl ain ant’ s memorywo u ld f alt er ). Po intof er ro r tw o i s o v er ru led . Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.