### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00074-CR
Michael Anders on, Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRI CT COUR T OF TR AVIS CO UNTY, 2 99TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 0991669, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWE LL, JUDGE PRESIDING
A jury fou nd

Mi ch ae l A nd ers on, appe ll an

t, gui l ty of i n de cen cy wi th a ch i l d b y con tact. See Te x. P enal Co de Ann. § 21 .1 1( a) (1 ) ( West Su pp. 200 1) . T he dist rict co ur t asse ssed punishment at t en yea r s’ co nfine men t in t he Te xas D epa rt ment o f Criminal Just ice Ins t itu t ional Division. Ap pe llant se ek s r ev er sa l an d r ema nd , r ais ing fo ur po int s o f er r o r . We will a ffir m. BACKGROUND Appe llant d oe s no t challenge sufficiency of t he evi den ce; however, a bri ef

sum mary of the ev i den ce wi l l provi de con text f or the discu ssi

on of appe l l an t’s poi nts of error. Acco rd ingto trial

testi m ony, appe l l an

t and the c omp l ai

na nt’s m other, Ton

ya, wer e in volv ed in a ro mantic r elat ionship. On t he night in que sti on, Nov em ber 18, 1998, Tonya i

nvi ted app ellant to her ap artm

en t to spend the n i ght. Th e coupl e reti red to the b edroom

and the f i f teen year-2

ol d co mplainant, who was f

eelin g il l, took so me

Ny Quil prior to fall

in g asleep on a co uch in t he living r o o m. Later that eveni

ng, the compl

ai nan t awoke when

she f el t fi ngers i nsi de her va gin a. She sat up and d isco ver ed a ppe llant sit t ing next t o he r, nake d, wit h his hands in he r un derp ants. Wi thout co mment , ap pe llant qu ick ly st o o d u p a nd r et ur ne d t o T o nya’ s be dr o o m.

A few minut es lat er , T onya e merg ed fr om t he bed ro om aft er hear ing no ise in the livi ng r o o m. She no t iced t hat t he co mplainant w as u pse t and a ske d her what was wr ong . T he co mplainant tol d he rmo t he rt ha t ap pe llant ha d t o uc he d h er . T o nya w en t ba ck t o t he be dr o o m, where sh e confronted

app ellant. Fro m the living ro om, t he co mplainant hear d ap pellant denyt he allega t ion and accuse co mplainant of l

y i ng. The co mplainant be came a ngr y, o bt ained a knife fro m the k itche n, a nd attempted to chase a

ppella nt from the home . Tonya restrai

ned the com

pla in ant and appel

la nt ran out of t he ap ar t ment. To nya co nt act ed a sec ur ity gu ar d, who l ater return ed wi th appel l an t. The poli

ce arri ve d sh ortly there af ter. Appe llantwas indict ed o n or abo ut May 6, 199 9, for sexu al assa ult of a child and indece ncy with a chi

ld b y c ontact. For penal

ty en han cem ent purposes, the in

dictment al so all

eged that appe l l an

t ha d pr ev i ous l y be en con vi cte d of pos se ss i on of

a controlled s

ubstance, a f

el ony of fen se, on F ebruary

8, 1995 . At t rial, t he St at e’s w itnes ses w er e t he com pl ai n an t, Tony a, an d two pol i ce of

f i cers who wereca

l l ed to the scene . The def

ense ca ll ed an ex pe r t wit ne ss wh o t es t ified t ha t it wa s p o ss ible t he compl ai nan t im agi ned the i nci dent. Appel

la nt did n ot testify . Appel la nt’s def ense at trial

was that the event alleged by the compl ain ant did not o ccur and he was in nocent o f the charges.3 Al thoughthe j ury

ac qu it t ed ap pe llant o f t he se xu al a ss au lt char ge, it fo und a ppe llant gui l ty of i n de cen cy wi th a ch i l d b y con tact. Appe llant elec t ed t o ha ve th e tr i al j udge set pu n i sh men t. The dist rict co ur t asse ssed app ellant’ s pu nishment a t t en year s’ co nfinementin the T exas Dep ar t ment of Cr imi nal Just ice Ins t itu t ional Division. Appellant’s f

our poi n ts o f er ror c on ten d th at ( 1) t he jud gme nt do es no t ac cu r at ely refl ect ev en ts during the p enalty phase of appellant’s t rial; (2 ) t he St at e violat ed a ppe llant’s r ight s by co mmenting on

h i s f ai l ur e to te sti

f y ; (3 ) the i

n di ctm en t a lleges a n im

possible date; and (4) trial co un se l re nd er ed ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l. DISCUSSI ON Judgment Appellant’s f i rs t poi nt of err orargues that t he j udgme nt does not accurat el

y ref le ct ev en ts du r ing t he pe na lt y ph as e o f ap pe llant ’s t r ial. The judgm ent recites that appel

la nt pled “ true” to a p rev i ouscon vi cti on a l l eg ed f oren h an cemen t, and t hat t he t rial judg e fo und t he allega t ion t o be true. In con tr ast, the report er’s record of the senten ci ng he arin g contain s no pl ea and n

o fi ndi ngs re gar ding t he enha ncement par agr aph. Base d o n t his discr epa ncy, a ppe llantas ks t his Co ur t t o mo dify t he dist rict co ur t ’s judg ment by de l eti ng appe l l an t’s plea of “tr ue” t o t he enha ncement par agr aph a nd the dis trict court ’s f

in din g of “true.” SeeTex . R. A pp. P. 43 .2(b ). Wh en the judge serves as t he t r ier o f fac t du r ing t he pu nish men t ph as e o f t he t r ial, it i s n ot n ec es sa

ry f or th e en h an cemen t pa ra gr ap h to b e read or

f or th e a pp el l an t to pl ead to i t. Reed
v. State , 500 S.W.2d497 , 49 9-5 00 ( Tex. Crim. App. 197 3); Davis v . State , 970 S.W.2d 747, 749-50 (T ex. App. —Ho ust on [ 14t h D i st.] 1998 , n o p et .) ; Simms v . State , 8 48 S .W. 2d 7 54, 755 (T ex.4

A pp. —H ous ton

[1st Di st.] 1993 , pet. ref

’d). See als o Tiudel v. St

ate , 8 30 S .W. 2d 1 35, 136 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1992 ). Appe llant wa ived t he readin g of the i ndictmen t, and the judge as

ked i f this was because he un de r st o o d t he ch ar ge s. Ap pe llant no dd ed his head i n the af fi rmati ve. Later, during a di scus si on on motions , defense counsel stated he h ad

no objection to the extraneous offenses for punishment , as long as they were not introduced in

the case- in-chi ef. La stl

y , du ri n g th e p en al ty phase, w hen t he pr os ecu t or ask ed t he co ur t t o c ons ider t he pr ior co nvictio n, t he de fense c ou ns e l ma de the comm

ent, “I thi nk the f act that he has a pr ior co nv i cti on h as al re ad y b een tak en i n to cons i derati

on; that’ s the

reas on we ’re s

tartin g at f i ve years i nstead of two.” The re is ample evide nce t o p ro ve t he pr eviou s co nvictio n and appella nt does not argue ot herwi se. Witho ut dire ct pr oo f to t he co nt ra ry, t he reci tations i n a f orma l j udgm en t are presum

ed to be correct. Breaze

ale v. State , 683 S. W.2 d 44 6, 450 -5 1 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 985 ). The first po int of error is overruled. Comment on Fail

ure t o Testify Appe llantcon

ten dsth at t he dis tri

ct c our t er re d i n al l owi n g th e state ’s cou n se l to co mmenton appellant’s fai lure to t estify. During closi ng arguments, one of

the prosecu

tors ma de th e f oll owi n g s tate men t: No w, as t he Cha rg e t ells you, you a re t he exc lusive j udge s of th e cre di b i l i ty of the witnesse s in thi

s c as e. Y ou c an

be l i eve al l

of what s omeb ody

sa y s, n one of what som eb ody sa y s, or som e of wh at som

eb ody say s. And whodid you hear from in this case? Wel

l, i t’s undi sputed, that i s, the re i s n o evi den ce c ontrary

in this case that on or about Novem ber 18 , 19 99, [ the co mplainant] was in her home. It ’s undi sputed. There’s al

so no dispute that [the co mpl ainant’s add re ss] is in Aust in, T r av is Co unt y, Te xas. Tha t ’s und isput ed. The re ’s no dis pute that [the c om

pl ai n an t] is t he pe rso n who is the victim named in the i ndictmen t. There is n

o dispute that5

Mi chael Ander so n is the defend ant named in t he indict ment. In fac t , [ t he compl ai nan t] identi fi ed him; T o nya id en t ified him. There i s no di spute that Michael A nd ers on and Tony

a were datin

g and that they

were in her bedroom atso me po int dur ingtha

t ni gh t. There ’s

no d i sputetha t [th e c om

pl ai na nt] was on t he co uch. There’s no dis

pute that Mi

ch ae l A nd ers on wassta

nd i ng i n f ron t of [the c om pl ai n an t] naked. ( E mph as is add ed. ) Ap pellant ar gue s t hat t he phr ase , “And who did yo u h ea rfr o m in t his c as e, ” is a re f eren ce to his fa ilur e t o t es t ify and t hu s is i n v i ol ati on of h i s r i gh t to remai n si l en t un der the F i f

th Amendment t o t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion, sec t ion 1 0 o f art icle I o f the Te xas Co nst itu t ion, and arti cle 38.0 8 of

the Texa s Code

of Cri m i na l Procedu re. The re wa s n o obj ec ti on

to the pr osec ut or ’s argum en t. An app ellant fo rfeit s his right to rai se an argu men t on appe al i f h e f ai l ed to obje ct t o a jury ar gument or pur sue an ad ver se r uling duri ng tri al . Cockr ell v. State , 933 S.W .2d 73, 8 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1996 ). The al

le ged error was no t pr es er ve d fo rap pe al.

Even if the obje ction ha

d been pres er ved, the argu men

t was not im

pro per because when t ake n in cont ext , t he prosecuto r’s comm ent does not co nsti

tut e even an i ndi rect com men t on appellant’s f

ail ure to testi f

y . See Now

lin v. State , 507 S.W.2d534, 53 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1974 ). In t his cas e, t he pr os ecu t or was re ferr ing t o e vidence t hat co uld have been supplie d by parties other than t he appella

nt, in cl udin g Tonya, the sec

urity guard, or t he polic e off

ic er s. The

pros ecutor d

i d n ot co mmenton the chal

le nged portions of the case. The prosecut or’s statem en ts ref er re d on l y to undi sputedphysical

facts that had no r elation to appellan t’s d efens e at t rial. T her e is no t hing app ellant could have testif ie d to that w ould contr adict these points. Appel la nt’s def ense was not that6

h e wassom

ewh ere othe r than at the c omp l ai

na nt’s hom e on the n

i ght a l l eged , but ra

ther th at the specifi c i nci dent never occurred. The second poi

nt of error is overruled. Indictment Appe llantc hallenges t he dist rict co ur t ’s jur isdict ion bec aus e he c laims that t he i ndi ctmen t al l eges an i m possi bl e date. See Te x. Cod

e Cri m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 21.02( 6) (West 198 9). Appe llantwas cha

rged with i

ndecen cy with a chi

ld on Nove

mb er 18, 199 8 . Ac co rd ing t o t he repo rt er’s rec ord, the

pros ecutor

stated in open court t hat the i

ndictmen t was handed down

May 6, 199 1 —more than

seven y ears prior to the o ff ense. Ho wever, the indictment appe ars in the clerk’s record and i s f il e stamped M ay

6, 199 9 . The i

ncorrect dat e i

n the reporter’s record was sim ply due to a tra ns cri ption e rror or the pr osec ut or ’s slip of the tongue. The third poin t o f error is

overruled. Ineffective Assistance of Couns el Appellant’s fo ur t h p o int o f er r o rr ais es t he iss ue o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l. A pp el l an t al l eg es th e def ense cou n se l at tr i al wa s i n ef f ec ti v e i n th re e a re as : (1 ) he d

i d n ot ob j ec t to t he prosecuto rs or witnesses referri ng to t he com

pla in ant as “the v

ictim ”; (2) he di

d not challe

ngef or cause any ven irepersons

who had personal

experience wi

th abuse, an

d allo wed one j uror who had been ab us ed t o se rve o n t he jury; and ( 3) he did no t objec t t o t he pr os ecu t or ’s allege d co mmenton appe l l an t’s f ail ure to testi f

y . In d et er mini

ng whether cou nsel’s

act ions c ons t itu t e ineffect ive assist ance unde r t he Si xth A men dm en t to the U

n i ted Sta tes Con sti tution , the re levant t est is found in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) , which was f irst ado pted by

the Texas Court of Crim in al7

Ap pe als in Hernandez v. Texas , 726 S.W .2d 53, 5 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1986 ). Thi s test requires that a c ourt fi rst determ

i ne i f the a ttorney provi ded re ason

ab l y ef f ecti ve ass i stan ce. Hernandez , 72 6 S.W.2d at 55; see also Chuong Duong Tong v. State , 25 S.W .3d 707 , 712 (Tex. Cri m . App. 2000 ); Thompson v. State , 9 S . W. 3d 80 8, 81 2- 13 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 9); Young v . State , 991 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). T hi s deter mi nation requires some evi

dence regarding the defense att or ney’s st ra t egy, suc h as t est imony dur ing a mot ion fo r a new t rial, o r w e must pr esu me the atto rney made h i s de ci sions r

eas onab l y . Thompso n v. State , 9 S. W.3 d 80 8, 814 -1 5 ( Te x. Crim . App. 1999) ; Jack

son, 877S.W .2d

at 7 72- 73 (Bai

rd, J., con cu rri ng). It is n

ot up t o t his Co ur t t o s eco nd guess the def

en se a ttorney ’stria

l strategy. See Joh nson v. Sta te , 62 9 S . W. 2d 73 1, 73 7 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1981 ). Ins tead, w e m ust tr y to view the case f rom counsel ’s v

ie w at the time , rather than in dulge i n the di stortin

g ef f ects of hi nds i ght. Stri

ckla nd, 466 U .S. at 689; Ex parte K unkle , 852 S.W.2d 499 , 5 05 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 993 ). If it is d et er mined t hat t he de fens e atto rney di d n ot provide re aso nably effect iveassi stance, the court must then deci de i f the error resul

ted in r ev er sible err oror prejudi ce. Hernandez , 726 S.W.2d at 55; see also Chuong Duong Tong , 25 S.W.3d at 712; Thompson , 9 S .W.3 d at 812 -13 ; Young v . State , 991 S.W.2d at 837. A. “Victim” Language

Appe llantre f

er s to ei gh t occ as i on s w

h en de f ense cou n se l di d n ot ob j ec t to use of t he term “v ictim .” He argues thatfai lure to object to use of this term was n

ot a reasonabl

e trial strategy and prejudi

ced a ppel l an t’s f und am en tal and sub stan

tia l ri ght to be

presum ed i nn ocen t. The re is a stro ng presumption that any actions taken by a defense atto rney were ma de as so und tria

l strategy. Stri

ckla nd, 466 U.S. at 689; Jacks on v. State , 8 77 S .W. 2d 7 68, 771 (T ex.8

Cr im. App. 199 4); Mayhue v. St ate , 969 S.W.2d 503, 510 (T ex. App. —Aus t in 199 8, no p et .) . T he app ellant ha s t he bur

den of overcom

i ng th i s pre sum pti on. Jackson, 877 S. W.2d at 771 ; Gutierrez
v. State , 8 S.W.3d 7 39 , 74 9 (T ex. App .—Au st in 1999, no p et .) ; Mayhue , 969 S.W.2d at 510.

“ Vi cti m ” is q ui te mil d co mpar ed t o o t her t er ms used by pr o se cu t o r s in t he irco mmen t s t o t he ju ry, whi ch the c ourts ha

ve f ound n on-pre j udicial . Lopez v. State , 286 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex. Crim . App. 1956) (holdin

g that use of word “sl

aughter” d id n

ot cause inj ury t o a ppellant) ; Espalin v. State , 237 S.W. 2 74, 279(Tex . Cri

m . App. 1921 ) (hol

di ng prosecu

tor’s ref eren ce to appe l l an

t as “ thi s ki l l er” was not so pr eju dic ia l as to inj ure appe ll ant ’s right s); Jones

v. State , 9 00 S .W. 2d 3 92, 397 (T ex. App.—San

Ant o nio 19 95 , pe

t. re f ’d ) (h ol di n g th at pros ec utor ’s us e of ter m “ sex sl av e” i n re ga rd to co mplainant was no t r evers ibl e er ro r) ; White v

. State , 699 S.W.2d 607, 615 (Tex. App.—Dal las 1985, p et. ref

’d) (h old i ng th at use of word “b

utch er” i n re f eren ce to appe l l an

t was n ot im proper). Fai l ure t o o bje ct t o t he t er m “vic t im” ma y h ave b een an

in tentional choi ce not to draw the j ury ’s atte nti on t o it s us e. At best , t he de fense a t t or ney at t rial co uld have re que st ed u se o f the term “a lleg ed vic t im”; ho we ve r , it is u nlik ely he wo uld ha ve su cc ee de d o rt ha t t his w o uld have had a different effect on t he jury. Therefore, f ai l ure to obj ec t did n

ot con sti tute i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of co un se l. B. Voir Dire

Dur ingvoi

r di re, the pros ecutor

asked: “Is a

ny body e ither them

sel vesor a rel

ati ve or so meone cl ose to them b een a v ictim of chi ld a buse? ” F our v eni rep ers on s rai sed thei r hands . Of these fou r, t wo wer e pe re mpt or ily st rick en by

t he d efe nse attorney wi

thout dis cussi

on; one was pe r emp t o r ily

str i cken af ter di sc us si on ; an d th e f our th was not st rick en and beca me a member o f the9

jury. Appel

la nt all eges hi s atto rney should have attemptedto chal le nget he first t hre e venire per so ns f orca us e, ra th e r than usi

ng perem pto ry strikes, and that the j uror who served should have been chal le nged fo rca us e, o rat a min imu m st ruc k p er emp t o r ily. Appell ant beli eves that t heseac t io ns d id no t co ns t it ut e r ea so na ble t r ial s t r at eg y an d t ha t t he y r es ul t ed in a pr eju di cia l ju ry.

Wi thout a record regarding the def ense attorney’ s trial

strategy, it i s presum

ed counsel used reas onab l e j udgm

en t duri ng v oir d i re. Jackson , 877 S. W.2d at 771 ; Delrio v . State , 840 S.W.2d 44 3, 44 7 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 92 ) . T he r e w as no mo t io n fo rne w t r ial, no he ar ing , an d n o affid av it f rom def en se c ouns el . The

ref ore, the r ecord is co mplet ely sil

ent re gar ding trial

strategy. Wi

thout so me evi dence regardin g the defe nse attorney’ s strategy, such as testim ony duri ng a m ot ion f or a new t r ial, we mus t pr esu me the at t or ne y m ad e h is d ec isio ns r eg ar di ng jury memb er s r ea so na bly. Thompson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 808 , 814-1 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1999 ); Jack

son, 877 S.W.2d at 772-73 (Bai rd, J., co ncur ring) . We canno t sec ond guess t he defense att or ney’s trial strategy and decl

are that defens e co unse l’s failure t o c hallenge fo r c aus e wa s no t so und trial st ra t egy; no r c an we say, in t he abse nc e o f t es ti

mony to the con trar y , th at d ef

en se cou ns el ’s de ci si on to k ee p the c om

pl ai ne d of ve nir ep er so n o n t he jury wa s n o t so un d t r ial s t r at eg y.

Even if defense counsel had ch alle nged the f irst three ven

irepersons

for cause rather than using p er empt or y str ikes, app ellant ha s fa iled t o sho w t ha t t his w o uld ha ve ch an ge d t he o ut co me of the tri al . SeeAlfano v. State , 780 S.W.2 d 494, 4 96 (Tex . App.—Corpu s Ch ri sti 1989, n o pet.). Appe llanthas n

ot arg ue d that the d ef

ense ran out of peremptory stri

kes, such t hat co unse l cou ld have obtaine d different or mor e favo ra ble juro rs if he had challenge d t he first t hre e pa nelists for cau se. As f ornot striking f or cau se t he venire per so n who ser ved o n t he jur y, she d id no t uneq uivo cally say she10

was unab le to be impa r t ial. Whe n a sk ed if pa st ab us e w o uld pr ev en t he rfr o m re nd er ing a fa ir dec ision, she responded: “Mayb e . . . the older chil d thing could.” Thus, the defense counsel ma y ha ve had som e rea son to b el

i ev e sh e coul d be he l pf ul to appel l an t as a j uror. C. Comment on Appe

llant’ s Failure to Tes tify Appellant’s final argu ment r ega rd ing ineffect iveassi stance of couns el is relat ed t o t he sec ond poi

nt of err or . He ar gues t hat t he defense att or ney’s f ail ure t o o bject to the pr osec ut or ’s co mment d ur ing clos ing ar gument , “And wh o did yo u h ea rfr o m in t his c as e, ” w as an un r ea so na ble ac ti on r es ult ing in p r eju dic e. As p r ev io us ly co nc lud ed , wh en co nsid er ed in co nt ext , t he co mmentdid not refer to appell

an t ’s failu r e t o t es t ify, b ut t o a la ck o f co nt r o ve rt ing t es t imo ny fr o m ind ividua ls ot her than the a ppel l an t. See Now

lin , 50 7 S. W.2d at 537 ; see also Patr ick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 490-91 (Te x. Cri

m . A pp. 199 5). Th e s tate men t mere l y i ntr od uced th e p ros ecutor ’s

appr opri ate reviewof the testim

ony gi ven and the un

contro verted even

ts leadi ng up to t he al

le ged compl

ai n t. Defens e cou

n se l ’s f ai l ur e to objec t t o t his co mment may re flect his unde rst anding of thi s f act. Even if he di d b el

i ev e i t wa s i n re f eren ce to th e a pp el l an t’s f ai l ur e to te sti

f y , he m ay h av e ch ose n n ot t o obje ct be ca us e d o in g s o wou ld have c alled t he jur y’s at t ent ion t o t he lack of t est imony by the app ellant mo re t han t he c o mment it se lf. In e ither event , a s we have c onc luded t hat t he comm ent was n ot a reference t o ap pellan

t’s fail ure t o t estify, defense co unsel’sfailure t o o bject is not ineffect ive assi stanceof c ouns el . See Richar ds v. State , 91 2 S. W .2d

374 , 38 3 (T ex . A

pp. —H ous ton

[1 4th Di st.] 199 5, p et . r ef’d); see also Ladd v. State , 3 S.W .3d 547 , 569 (Te x. Cri m . App. 1999 ). The f ourt h poin

t o f error is

overruled.11 CONCLU SION H aving o ve

rrul ed each of appe l l an t’s poi nts of err or, w e a f f i rm the j udg men t of convi ction an d sentence .

Mack Ki dd, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: June 14, 2001 Do No t Publis

h