### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00533-CR
Santiago Es quivel, Jr., Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-99-0446, HO NORABLE DON MORG AN, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jur y fo un d a pp ella nt Sa nt iag o E sq uiv el, Jr. , g uilty o f po sses sing co caine wit h intent to de live r . T he t r ial c o ur t as se ss ed pu nis hme nt , en ha nc ed by previous fel ony c onvictions, at i m pri sonm en t for twen ty-f i ve years . See Te x. Heal

th & Saf ety Code Ann . § 481. 112(a), (d) (West Supp. 2001). In eigh

t p o int s o f er r o r , ap pe llant co nt en ds t ha t t he ev ide nc e is leg ally a nd fac t ua lly insuff ici ent and that he di d not receive ef fectiv e assis tance of cou nsel . We overrule these poi nts of er ror a n d a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t. Facts and Procedur al Back

ground On May 27, 1999, an an

onym ous call er to ld San

Marcos Police Of

fi cer T er ry Nic ho ls that Joe Rami

rez and J. J. Gonzal ezwe r e s elling co ca ine fr o m a r o o m at t he E co no Lo dg e M o t el in San Ma r co s. Nic ho ls w as famili ar wit h both Ram irez a nd Gonzal

ez from previous narcotics in vestigations. In addi

tion, Ni chol s had b een l

ooking f or Go nzal ez because he was a

fugit ive on a2

co caine ch ar ge . I n a su bse qu en t ca ll, t he ca ller ad vise d N ich o ls t ha t t he t wo men we r e p r o ba bly st aying at t he mo t el w it h a n ind ividua l kn o wn as Pa co . Fr o m a p r io rinve st iga t io n, Nic ho ls recogn ized th e n i ckn am e as one u sed by appe l l an t. As a c on se qu en

ce of th e ti p, Ni ch ol s a n d oth er of f i cers wi th th e H ay s C oun ty Na rc oti cs Task Force went to t he Econo Lodge Motel and estab li shed s urvei ll ance of roo m 20 8 , whi ch wasregi stered

i n a ppel l an t’s n am e. The off

ic ers observed R

am irez st anding o n t he balco ny out si de roo m 208. He s ubse que nt ly l eft in a vehicle t hat had be en de scr ibed by the informant . T he off i cers al so obs erv ed ch

i l dren goi ng i n a nd out of the room . In addi ti on t o t he observati ons of the ex terior of the motel, the of

fi cers occupied a

n adjo ining motel r oom. The room was conn ected to roo m 208 b

y a comm on door through which

t he off i cers could overhe ar con

versati ons. Nicho ls te st ifi

ed t hat he hea rd peo ple t alking abo ut “bagg ing up po wd er ” a nd “o ve r do sing . ” A ft er co nt inu in g the i r sur veillance for t he next t wo hou rs, t he off i cers en tered the room , ex ecuti

ng a f elony arrest warran

t for Gon zal ez. Appe llantwa s o ne o f se ve r al p eo ple in the mot el roo m at t he time of the war rant ’s exec ut ion. Whe n t he po lice en t er ed t he mo t el r o o m, t he y fo un d a pp ella nt stan di ng i n the sh ower, fully cl ot hed, wi

th the shower curtain

pul le d cl osed. Appella

nt had a sy

rin ge at hi s f

eet and was wea ring a pillowc ase as a shirt . H e ap pea re d t o be unde r t he influence o f narc ot ics. P olice fo und bagg ies wit h t ra ces of c oc aine o n a co unt er just ou t side t he bat hro om in plain view. Go nzalez and another ind ividua l, Ma

ri a Tor res , we re f oun d to have b ag giesof

coc ai ne on their per sons. To rres’s si xtee n -y ea r-ol d d augh ter wa s f oun d w i th t ra ck mar ks a nd br uises o n her ar m and was t ake n t o t he3

em ergen cy room f or a sus pected overd ose of cocai ne . Along wit h Go nzalez and T or re s, a ppe llant was arrested for possessi

on of cocai

ne wi th in tent t o distrib

ute. Discussion Sufficiency of the Evidence

In fo ur po ints o f err or , a ppe llant cha llenges t he lega l and fact ual su ffi ciency o f the evi dence b oth as to his poss ess i on of

cocai ne and asto the al

l eged am ount of cocai ne . In det er mini ng t he lega l sufficiency of t he ev i den ce to support a crimi

nal convi ction, the question i

s whether, af

ter viewing all the e vidence in the li ght most favo ra ble to t he ver dict , a ny rat ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd the e sse ntial elem en ts of th e of f en se b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Jackson v. Virgin ia , 443 U.S. 307 , 32 4 (1 979 ); Griffin v. State , 614 S.W .2d 155 , 158-5 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1981 ). “Po sses sion” is

defi ned as actual c are, custody, contro l, or ma nagem ent. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1. 07( a) (3 9) (Wes t 199 4) . T o p ro ve unl awful possession of a controll ed subs t ance , t he Sta te mus t pro ve that the accused ex ercis ed care, co nt ro l, and ma nagem ent of the sub stance, and that t he accused kn

ew the subs

tance wascontrab and. Martin v. Sta te , 753 S. W. 2d 38 4, 38 7 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 198 7); Hackleman v. State , 919 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pe t . r ef’ d u nt imely f i l ed). Whe n, as he r e, t he ac cu se d is not in exclusive co nt ro l of t he pla ce the contraband is f

ound, t he St at e mu st pr o ve ind ep en de nt fac t s a nd cir cu ms t anc es affi rmat ively l inking t he ac cus ed t o t he contraband. Cude v. St

ate , 716 S.W.2d 46 , 47 (T ex. Crim . App. 1986 ). “Aff irm ative l in ks” is a sho rt hand ex

pre ss i on of

what the Sta

te m us t prov e to est ablish tha t the

ac cu se d kn

owi ng l y or int en t io na lly

posse sse d the

contrab and. Brow

n v. State , 911 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim . App. 1995) . The requi

red aff irm ative li nkscan b e proven by

direct or circumstantial

evi dence, b ut t he l in ks4

do not need to be so str ong that t hey excl ude ev ery other outstan

di ng r eas onab l e h

y pothes i s. Id. at 747-48. The accused’s

connecti on with the drug m ust be m ore t han “f ort uitous.” Id. at 747. A defen dant’s m ere presence a

t a place wh

ere contraband i s bei

ng used or possessed by othe rs doe s n ot suf f i ce to li nk h i m to the con

traba nd. Martin , 752 S.W.2d at 387. Fact or s t o be considered when

eval uating a ff irm ative li nks i ncl ude: (1) t he de fendant ’s pr ese nce w hen t he search was ex ecuted ; (2)wh ethe r the c ontrab and was

i n pl ai n v i ew; (3) the d efenda nt ’s pr oximity t o a nd ac ce ss i b i l i ty of t he co nt ra band; ( 4) whet her t he de fendant was under the i nf lue nce of a contro ll ed substanc e when

arrested; (5) whether the def endan t po ssesse d ot her

contraband wh

en arrested; (6) wh eth er th e def en da n t m ade i n cri m i n ati n g s tate men ts when arrested; (7) whether

ot her co nt ra band ordr ug p ar aphe rna lia was p re sent ; (8 ) w het her t he de fendant owned or had t he r ight t o p os sess t he pla ce the drugs were found;and (9) whether the pl ace the d rugs were found was encl osed. Whitw orth v. State , 808 S.W .2d 566 , 56 9 (T ex . A

pp. —A us ti n 1 991 , pet. re f

’d ). Th e n um be r of fact or s pr ese nt in any part icular cas e is less impo rt ant t han t he log ical for ce t he fact or s have , a lone or in com bi na tion , i n e stab l i sh

i ng th e el em en ts of th e of f en se. Id. The re was am ple evi dence f rom whi ch a j ury coul

d have concl

uded that appell

ant was guil ty be yond a reasonabl

e doubt of possessi

ng m ore t han four grams

of cocai ne. Th e m

otel room was regi stered in

appella nt’s na me ; the m ot el owne r testi f i ed th at he

gen eral l y reque sts s ome

f orm of i den tif i cation of motel g ues ts when

they regi ster. In t he moment s pr ece ding t he pol i ce en try i n to t he ro om, t he po lice ove rhe ar d nar co t ics-r elat ed c onve rsa t ions. When t he po lice ent er ed t he motel
r o o m, ap pe llant wa s fo un d in t he ba t hr o o m, fully c lo t he d, wit h a n u nc ap pe d s yrin ge at his feet , a nd5

under t he ap par ent i

nf l ue nc e of co caine. Po lice fou nd in plain view empt y baggies co nt aining co caine
r es idu e o n t he co un t er o f t he sink ar ea jus t o ut sid e t he ba t hr o o m.

The officer s fou nd

cocai ne i n v arious other

pl ace s i n the sm al l room. Gonzal ez had thirteen baggi es of co cai ne i n a sh oppi ng ba g un de r hi s shi

rt. M ari a Tor res wa s i n p oss es si

on of co caine as w ell as unu sed syringes , a nd he r daug hter h ad to be trans ported to the h

ospi tal f or a suspected ove rd os e. In a ddit ion, the poli ce found c ocain

e l oose in an

ashtray in a dr esse r d ra wer . T he off i cers sei zed cocain

e i n an amou nt exce eding ni

ne grams. Vi ewin

g this evi dence in the li ght most fav orable to the verdict, a rat iona l tri er of f act could fi

nd be yond a re aso nable do ubt t hat app ellant exerci sed ca r e, cu st o dy, or co ntrol over the cocain e knowi ng that it was contraban

d. Poi nts of err or four and si

x are overrul ed. Wh en conductin

g a factual suf fi ci ency review, t he evide nce is no t viewed in the light most favo ra ble to t he ve r dic t . I nst ea d, all t he ev ide nc e is considered equally , in cl udin g the exi stence of al terna tiv e h y pothes es. Orona v

. State , 836 S.W.2d

319, 32 1 (Tex . App.—A

usti n 19 92, n o pet.). A factual suf fi ci ency review asks wh

ether a neut ral review of all the eviden

ce, bot h f or and against t he f i nd i ng of gui l t, demons

trate s th at the p roof

of gu ilt is s o o bvio us ly we ak o rso gr ea t ly out wei ghed

by contrar y proof a s to und

erm i ne conf i den ce i n the j ury ’sdeterm

i na tion . Johnson v. State , 23 S.W .3d 1, 11 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2000 ). A verdict m ay be set asi de for f actual i nsuf fi ci ency o nly i f a f i ndi ng of gui l t bey ond a reas onab l e doubt is

clearl y wrong and un j ust. Clew

is v. State , 922 S.W.2d 126 , 1 29 ( Te x. Crim. App. 199 6); Stone v. Sta te , 823 S.W.2d37 5, 38 1 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1992, p et. ref

’d u nti mel y f i l ed).6 The evidenc e r elevant t o ap pe llant ’s gu ilt was esse nt ially unco nt ra dict ed. Dispu t ing t he inferenc es t o be dr awn fr om t he fact s, a ppe llant ar gue s t hat t he fact s de monst ra t ed t hat app ellant was a m ere han ger-on or user, r ather

tha n a di stri bu tor of coc ai ne . Be ca us e a ppe l l an t wa s n ot fou nd wi th coca ine on hi

s p ers on, he

arg ue s th at he di d n

ot exerc i se

ca re a nd con trol ove r th e d rug s or possess them

wi th i nten t to deli ver. A pp el l an t ackn owl ed ge s th at a person wi

th the sam

e nam e as he r ent ed t he r oo m, but ur ges t hat t her e is no evidenc e t hat he wa s t hat per so n.

We arenot free to reweigh t he ev ide nc e me r ely be ca us e w e fe el t ha t a d iffer en t r es ult is more reas onab l e. Clew is , 922 S.W.2d at 135. A decision is n ot man if estly unj ust sim

ply because t he f act f i nde r resol ve d con f l i cti ng v i ewsof the ev

i den ce i n the State’ s f

av or. Roise v. Sta te , 7 S.W.2d 22 5, 2 33 (Tex . A

pp .—A us ti n 19 99 , pe t. re f’d). Viewing t he evide nce ne ut ra lly , a nd giving due de f ere nc e to the j ury ’s

ve rdi ct, w e h ol d that the verd

i ct i s n ot man i f es tl y un j us t. Poi nts of err or fi ve an d seven are overruled. Ineffective Assistance of Couns el In his fir st t hr ee po int s o f er r o r , ap pe ll ant co nt ends he did no t re ceive e ffect ive assi stance of

co un se l at t r ial. Appel

la nt compl ai ns that counsel

was i nef fecti ve i n f ai li ng to (1) o bj ect to the prosecu

tion ’suse of extran eous of f en ses , (2 ) c on te st the legal ity of the search

of the hotel
r o o m, and ( 3) re que st not ice o f the St at e’s int ent to in tro duce evi

dence of extraneous off

enses or bad acts. To pre

va i l on thi s c l ai m , ap pe l l an t m us t sh owthat coun

sel made s uch seri ous errors that he was n

ot fun ctioni ng ef fecti vel y as counsel

and that these er ro rs pr ejudiced appellant’s defense to such a degree

that he was depri

ve d of a f ai r tri al . Strickland

v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 6877

( 1984) ; Hernan dez v. Sta te , 988 S.W.2d 770, 771-72 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 1999). The adequ ac y o f defense co un se l’s as sis t an ce is based upon the totali ty of the represen

tation rather than upon i solated acts or om

i ssi ons of tria l coun sel . Garcia

v. State , 8 87 S .W. 2d 8 62, 880 (T ex. Cri m . App. 1994 ). The b ur den

i s on appe l l an t to pr ove by a pr epo nder ance of t he ev i de nc e that c oun se l ’s

repres en tation fell bel ow the standard of prevai

li ng profess iona

l n orms, and that

th er e is a re as on ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty that butf orcounsel ’s def

ic ie ncy the re sul t of the tria l would ha ve be en di f f eren t. McFar land v. State , 845 S.W.2d 824, 84 2 (Tex . Cri

m . Ap p. 1992 ). In

r ev iew ing a c laim o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce , we en t er t ain a strong presumption tha

t counsel ren

dered adequ a

te assi stance an

d exerci sed reasonab le

professi onal judg ment and that

co unse l’s co nduc t fell within the wide range of reas onabl

e professi onal assi stance. Strickland, 466 U.S . at 689 ; Jacks on v. State , 877 S.W .2d 768 , 771 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1994 ). Fai

l ure to make th

e requ i red showi ng of ei ther d ef i ci en t perf orma nc e or suf

f i ci en t pre judice def

ea t s t he i ne f f ecti vene ss c l ai

m . Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700. In his f i rst poi nt of error, a ppel lant c omp lains of co unse l’s failure t o o bject t o t he St ate ’s i ntr oduc ti on of ext ra neo us o ffenses. In d et er mini ng whet her co unse l’s failure t o r equ est and obje ct t o t he ad mission o f ext ra neo us o ffenses c ons t itu t ed d eficient performance, we must fi rst decide whether the of f en se s w ere

ad m i ss i bl e, b ec au se

f ai l ure to obj ec t to ot herwi se a dmissible te st imony does n ot rende r coun sel i ne f f ecti ve . See Hei

man v. State , 9 23 S .W. 2d 6 22, 625 (T ex. A pp. —H ous ton

[1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’ d). Extraneous offenses are i nadm is si ble to pr ove character co nfo r mit y, b ut may be ad miss ible f oroth er pu rp ose s s uch as pr oof of moti v e, opp ortu

n i ty , i n ten t, pr epa ra t ion, plan, kno wledg e, ident ity, o r a bsenc e o f mist ake or acc ident if t he pr o ba t ive va lue o f t his evidence substantial

ly out weighs

the danger o f unf

air prejudi

ce. Tex. R. Evid. 403, 404( b). Thus,8

an ex t r an eo us o ffen se may be ad miss ible if it is r elevant t o a mate rial issue and if t he r elevanc e o f the evi dence outweighs

i ts i nf l am matory or prej udici al

potential . See Williams v . State , 662 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Tex. Cri

m . App. 1983 ). Ap pellant ci

tes seven teen alle ged extraneous acts that he clai ms should have been excl uded fro m evidence , includ ing: ( 1) Officer N ichols’s t est imony tha t he was f am il ia rwit h app ellant f rom a previ ous narcotics i

nve stigati on where cocai

ne was fo un d, ap pe llant wa s p r es en t in pos se ss i on of a syringe , a nd ap pellant was issued a cit at ion fo r p os sess ion o f dru g pa ra pher nalia; (2 ) t est imony con cern i ng the ci rcu m sta nc esof app ellant’ s ar re st in this ca se, par t icular ly that he was fou nd in t he bathtub unde

rthe in fl uence of drugs; (3) evi

dence tha t othe r i nd i vi dua l s p res en t i n th e m otel room were in possession of cocai

ne, and that

the y we re a rre ste d a nd su bs eq ue ntl y con vi cte d of pos se ss i on of co caine w ith int ent t o d eliver; ( 4) t hat app ellant w as a rr est ed w ith a L one Star card and two unsigned check s made payable t o a ppe llant; ( 5) t hat co caine r esidu e wa s fou nd in an as ht ra y in a dresser drawe r and in a lady ’s cosmetics case on a c ounter by the si nk; (6) that appella

nt was known by the police to be a drug and cocai ne user; and (7) that the physi cal co nd it io n o f t he sixt ee n- yea r - o ld gi rl indicat ed d ru g us e. Bec aus e de fense c ou nsel did no t objec t t o t he ad mission o f this evide nc e , appella nt advan ces the argum

ent that he was prej udic ed by its adm is si on. We di sagree. Appe llanthas ci

ted no a uthori ty to su ppor t hi s c onte nti on th at the e vi de nc e of use and pos se ss i on

o f cocai ne an d d rug pa r ap he rna lia by o t he r s in t he r o o m is ina dmis sible . T he St at e is entitled to show c i

rcum stan ces surroun di ng a n a rrest. Maddox v. Sta te , 682 S.W.2d 563, 564 (T ex. Cr im. App. 1985 ). B ecause the e vidence was dire ct ly connec t ed t o, co nt empo ra neo us w ith, and i ns epara bl e f rom a ppel l an t’s a rrest, the ev

i den ce was prope

rl y adm i tted. Id . at 565.9 App ellant al so fai

ls to ci te any authority f

or his assertion that the residu e an d dru g pa r ap he rna lia

f ound i n c l ose prox

i m i ty to h i m constitute extran

eous of f en ses . T hi s ev ide nc e is re levant an d a dmis sible to sho w that appell ant was a partici

pant in the crim e for whi ch h e was charged. Beards ley v. State , 738 S.W.2d 6 81, 68 5 ( Te x . C ri m . A pp . 19 87 ). Th e S tate

sou gh t to establi sh ap pe l l an t’s cu stod y an d c ontr ol over, and access t o, t he drugs, that he was arr ested in close pr ox i m i ty t o co nt r ab an d, an d t ha t t he co nt r ab an d w as in pla in view. Thus the chal le

nged proof was integ ra l to t he o ffense fo r w hich app ellant was char ged . Aside fro m the relev ance of this evi dence in pro vi ng appell ant’s guil t as a pr in cipal , t he Stat e also re l i ed on th e th eor y th at h e w as a p ar ty to the of f en se c omm

i tted by others . Appe llantalso co mplainso f co uns el’s failur e t o o bjec t t o t he a dmiss io n o f a Lone Star card and two unsigned ch

ecks made p ayable t o a ppe llant. The St at e elicite d t est imony t hat app ellant was fo un d fu lly

dressed wi

th a walle t on h i s p ers on. Th e w al

l et c onta i ne d a Lon e Sta r ca rd f or f ood stamps, an un signed ch

eck in the am ount o f $60 m

ade out t o a ppe llant fo r yar d wo rk , a nd a s eco nd blank ch ec k al so f or $6 0 f or y ard work . On

cros s- exam

i na ti on of o ne of the poli

ce off ic ers, counsel establ is hed that S unlike o t her s in the room S appell ant had no drugs o r cash

on his p er so n. Ap pellant f ai l s to ci te an y au t ho r it y t o su pp o r t his a r gu men t t ha t t he se it ems ar e in ad miss ible extraneou s acts. He does not identi fy

any prejudi ce resul ting f rom the adm

is si on of these i

tems an d we fi nd none . Of t he se vent een a lleged a ct s liste d by app ellant, only fou r a rg uabl y quali fy as extraneous offense s. T hey involve the testim ony of two pol

i ce of f i cers t hat t hey rec og nized a ppe llant when he wa s a rre ste d b ec au se

he ha d b een pres en

t at the e xe cu

ti on of a se ar ch wa rr ant at a differe nt l oca ti on on a prior occasi on where drugs h ad been found. Both off

ic ers testif

ie d that t hey

knew10

app ellant t o be a us er of na rc ot ics and t ha t h e had b een issued a ci tation for possessi

on of drug pa r ap he rna lia

on a pre vi ousocc as i on. Evi de nc e of pri ordrug use i s adm

is si ble when the evi dence rais es an infere nce in favo r o f the exist ence of a mot ive on t he pa rt of t he accu sed t o c ommit t he o ffen se fo rwh ich he is ch arged . Puente v. State , 888 S.W.2d 521, 527 (Tex. App.—San Ant o nio 1994, no p et .) ; Johnso n v. State , 65 1 S .W .2d 30 3, 3 13 (Tex . A

pp .—S an A n toni o 19 83 , no pet. ) . Here, the testimony

tended to sh ow that a ppe l l an t wa s wi l l i ng to ren t a m otel room un de rhis n ame to facilitat e t he distributi on of cocaine. The evidence was admissible to est abl ish app ellant’ s mot ive and i nten t in be i ng prese nt i n the m otel r oom, a nd to sh ow that he was

not a m ere b y stan der. Even assu ming t hat t he evide nce w as inad missibl e, we d o no t believe that cou nsel’s f ail ure t o o bject t o it s intr od uct ion amo unt s t o ineffec t iveassist ance of c ou nsel. T he fai lure to object to inadm i ssi

bl e testi mony can constitute a

soun d an d pl aus i bl e tri al strategy. Coun sel ’sf

ail ure S or de ci si on S not to obj ect app ears

to be consi sten

t wi th h i s tri al strategy. The def en se theory

wasclear. As a mat t er of t rial st ra t egy, defens e co unse l sou ght to es t ab lish t ha t ap pe lla

nt was a mer e us er ra t her t han a d istr ibut or of c oc aine. In his o pening sta tem en t, cou n se l em ph as ize d th at a pp el l an t’s “ mer e p re se

n ce ” a t th e s cen e w as

i n suf f i ci en t t o convi ct him . Counsel argued: [T ]he focus of thi s i

nve stigati on was not Mr. Esquivel . And I thi nk the ev ide ncewill po intth at ou

t, that h e w as o ne o f a number of ha nger s-o n in the r oo m . . . . [T ]he evi dence will sho w t hat Mr. Esq uivel was not in po sses sion o f any of the controll ed substanc es found i

n that roo m a nd that whate ve r m ay ha ve ha ppe ne d w i th th e p ers on that ma y S t he ev i den ce may or m ay n ot s h ow th

ey wen t to the hospi

tal. Mr. Esquiv

el was not t he target of that. And Mr. Esqui vel was n ot th e p er son

re sp on si b l e f or th at. An d, cer t ainly, the char ge is p os sess ion, wit h intent t o d eliver. I t hink t he evi dence wil l show Mr. Esqu i

ve l ne ve r h ad an y ca re, cu stod

y or m an ag em en t or11

co nt r o l, even , of the controlled substance, much l

ess t he inte nt t o d eliver. Wat ch t he evi den ce a nd w ha t it s hows you ab out hi s i

nv olv em en t in thi s ca se. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, d efense co unse l sou ght t o e st ablish tha t t he ci rcu m sta nc esof t he pr io rinc ide nt we r e id en t ica l t o t ho se in the present case an

d that appell

ant was a mere use r a nd not a di stributor. Counsel

est ablished t hat t he officer s we re famil iar w ith ap pellant as a use r fro m the pri orcon tac t; th at he w asnot

fou nd wit h dr ugs on his p er so n; and t hat Go nzalez , w ho was fou nd wi th baggi es of drugs and a subs

tantial am ount of cash on his person , wasmost l i

kel y the d i stri butor. In clos ingargu

men t, c ounse l argu ed th at G on za l es an d To rre s, as

th e i n di v i du als wi th drugs fou nd

o n t he ir p er so ns, we r e p r o pe r ly ar re st ed a nd indict ed, but t hat app ellant S ason th e p rior occ as i on S was simply

fou nd wit h a syringe : “And w e find him i n exac t ly the sam e s ituation h ere: co caine al l ove

r the place , and [appel

la nt] is there s

tandi ng in a b athtub . Nothi

ng a round hi m .” Counsel la ter argued: “He han

gs out with bad people, he i s i n the wrong place at the w rong ti me too many times . ” T h

us , c ounse l

pu rs ue d a v i ab l e tr i al strate gy de si gn ed to m i n i m ize h i s c l i en t’ s cul pa b i l i ty whi l e adm

i ttin g to those a spe cts of

the evi den ce c onsi sten t wi th a “ ha nge r-on” th eory . Invoking the presumption i n f avor o f ef fectiv eness, as we m us t, we cann

ot view thi s deci si on in

an o t he rwis e f

air ly ag gr es siv e a nd co mp et en t de fe ns e a s d emo ns t r at ing inc o mp et en cy. Trial st ra t egy may co nst itu t e ineffect iveas sis t an ce o nly if the record demonstrates that t he conduct by

counsel i s without any pl ausib le b asis. Thompso n v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (T ex. Cr im. App. 199 9); McFarland , 92 8 S. W.2d at 501 ; Staf ford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Te x. Cr im. App. 1991). An appe ll ate court mus

t avoid the di stort ions

of hi ndsi ght, and m

ust ev al ua te counsel ’s conduct from

hi s perspectiv

e at the ti me of tria l . Exparte K

unkle , 852 S.W.2d 499, 50512

(T ex. Crim

. App. 1993). A consci

ous and i nf ormed de ci si on on tri al stra tegy ca nn ot be the basis f or a constitutional

in eff ective assi stance cl

ai m un le ss i t is so ill -chosen that i

t permeates the trial

wi th obvious unf

airness . Ev en as su m i ng tha t cou ns el erred by not ob j ec ti ng to the ad m i ss i on of the va riou s it ems of evide nce, ap pellant fails to demo nst ra t e ho w t he uno bject ed- t o e vidence might ha ve in fl uenced t he f ai rnes s of the trial . Thus, appella

nt satisf ie s nei ther prong of the Strickland t est : he nei ther dem onstrates erro r so egregious that it am ounted to in

eff ective represen

t ati on n or dem onstrates a r ea son

ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty that, b ut for th i s error, a di ff

erent out come m

igh t have b een ach i ev ed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Point of error o ne i s overruled.

In hi s thi rd point of error, appel l an t f urther contends that his

trial counsel was ineffect ivebecause

h e fai le d to request notice f

rom the State t hat the State intended to in tro duce evi dence of extraneous off

enses . Citi

ng Jauber t v. State , a

pp el l an t as se rtsthat t he trial

court’s f ail ure to request the St ate t o disclose i ts intent t o use evidence of ex traneo us bad acts is per se ineffect ive assi stance because

it underm

in es the adve

rsarial process. No. 10- 99-00090-CR, 2000 LEXIS 7512 (Tex . App.—Waco Oc t. 31, 2000 , no pet. h.).

Appe llantwould have been entitled to t hi s notice under Texas Co de o f Crim in al Procedu re article 37.07, section

3(g), an d Texas R

ul e of Evi den ce 40 4(b ). Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 , § 3(g) (West Supp. 2001); Tex. R. Evi d. 404(b). The State was obli gated to provide such notice, howeve

r, only if appella nt tim el y reques ted disclosure. Trial counsel’s fai lure to fi lepretrial moti ons ge ne ral l y doe s n ot resu l t in i ne f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . Autry v. State , 27 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 2000, pet. ref

’d); Wills v. State , 8 67 S .W. 2d 8 52, 856 (T ex.13

App.—Hou st on[ 14t h Dist. ] 19 93, pet . r ef’d); Martinez v. State , 8 24 S .W. 2d 6 88, 690 (T ex. App.—El Paso 19 92, pet. ref

’d). In the present case, the record is sile nt as to whethertrial

counsel recei ved noti ceof t he extraneous acts. The record also does not reveal whether he

was surpri sed by

any of the so-cal le d extraneous acts. It i s a

l so p oss i bl e that c oun se l

de term i ne d n ot to request the evidence, h oping that t he pros ecutor w oul

d n ot loca t e o r fo cus on o t her evidenc e. By raising a ppe llant’s mo t ive and int ent in his op ening ar gument , a ppe llant o pene d t he door f orthe Stat e to co me

forward wi

th its ev ide nce on thos e i ssues. That the proo f adduce d was consistent with the def ense theory

dem onstrates t hat it s adm i ssi on wa s stra

tegic an d purp osef

ul on the part of def en se c ouns el

and ha rm l ess ev en i f error. Al thoughpurposeful

ly deci din g not to req

ue st d i sc l osu re of th e S tate ’s

i n ten t to in tro duce evidenc e o f ext ra neo us o ffenses may amo unt to questionable trial strat egy, appell

ant also hasnot satisf

ie d the second prong of the Strickland test. Appellant has not st at ed w hat st eps he wo uld have taken i f h

e had re cei ved wri tt en n ot ic e of the State’s in

tent t o introduce extraneous evi dence. Autry , 27 S.W.3d at 182. No r has h e dem onstrated t hat

a differe nt ou t co me wo uld have been like ly i f trial cou n se l h ad b een i n pos se ss i on

of wri tten di sc l osu ref rom th e S tate of i ts pl an to in tro duce extraneous off

enses . Point of error t hree i s overruled. In h i s s ec on d p oi

n t of er ror, appe l l an

t co mp lains tha t his co unse l was ineffect ive because he failed t o file a mo t ion cha llengingthe l eg al i ty of the search of

the motel room. A

lthough t he offi cers entered the motel roo m on the basis of a fel ony arrest wa

rra nt f orGo nzalez , a ppe llant contends that t he s ea rc h o f t he r oo m was illegal and t hat his co unse l shou ld have c ont est ed t he l eg al i ty of th e s ea rc h . A pp el l an t doe s n ot co n test th e a uth or ity o f the po lice officer s t o e nt er t he14

m otel room to make t he ar r es t , bu t co nt en ds sp ec ifica lly t ha t t he se ar ch o f t he dr aw er s w as illeg al. We dis agree. The record establi shes t hat t he of

f i cers made a

“ dy n am i c” en try of th e m otel room to execute a felony wa rr ant on a

pe rs on w ho waskn own to be arm ed . Un de r a l ong l i ne of cases, poli

ce of f i cers are en ti tl ed to se arc h f orand s eize a ny

evidenc e o r w eap ons on a n ar re st ee’s per so n or t he area wi thi n h i s i m medi ate con trol. S ee , e. g . , Kn o wl es v. I

o wa , 525 U.S. 113, 116-17 (1998 ) ; California

v. Acevedo , 500 U .S. 565, 5 8 4 (199 1); Chimel v . California , 395 U.S. 753, 762-63 (1969 ); Rogers

v. State , 774 S.W.2d 247, 264 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1989 ). Co unse l was no t ineffect ive for fa il in g to chal le nge the l egality of the room search. Poi

nt of error t wo is overruled. Direct ap pe al o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce cla ims is pa r t icu lar ly diffic ult in issues r elat ing to trial strategy when

de f en se cou ns el wa s oth erw i se com pe ten t an d aggr es si ve . A ppe l l an t’s moti on f ornew tri al

di d not rai

se a n i ne f f ecti vene ss of coun sel clai m . A b ar e tr i al re cord i s s el

dom adeq ua te to pr o ve ine ffec t ive ne ss o f co un se l. See Jackson , 877 S.W.2d at 772 (Baird, J., concurring). After ca r efu lly reviewi ng the trial

record, we ho ld t hat app ellant has fai led to esta bli

sh that his counsel’s performa ncewas deficient . T her e is no t hingi n th e re cord to ove rcom e the s trong pr

esum ption that co un se l’s ac t io ns f

ell w it hin t he wid e r an ge o f r ea so na ble professi onal assi stance. Ab sent evi

dence to the contrary, we hold that counsel wa s n ot i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai li n g to req ue st n oti ce of or ob j ec t to evi dence of extraneous of

f ense s, or f

or f ai l i n g to fil e a p re t rial mot ion cha llenging t he se ar ch o f the mo t el r o o m.15

Hearsay In

his f i na l poi nt of error, app el

l an t conten ds that the tri

al courte rr ed in ad mitt ing Offic er Nicho ls’s t est imony tha t app ellant w as t he pe rso n who re nt ed t he mot el ro om whe re th e co caine wasf

ound. Appe llantobjected that the test im ony constituted inadmissible h earsay. Because t he ow ner of t he motel

wa s c al l ed as a wi tn es s a n d te sti f i ed to t he sa me evidenc e wit hou t objec t ion, we hold t hat t he error, i f

an y , washa rm l ess . See Joh nson v. Sta te , 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 8); Mayes v

. State , 81 6 S. W .2d

79, 88 ( Tex . Cr

i m . A pp. 199 1). Poi

nt of er ror e i gh t i s overruled.

Conclusion

Having ove rr uled a ppe llant’s e ight po ints o f err or , w e affirm the judg ment of the trial cou rt.

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: May

17, 2001 Do No t Publis

h