### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00544- CR

De r r e c k Lyn n G alv an, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BASTRO P COUNTY , 21ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 10,923 , HO NORAB LE TERRY L. FLENNI KEN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury fo u n d appellant De rre ck Ly nn Galvan guilty

of ag g ravated robbe ry

and
a s s e s s e d p u n is h me n t a t th ir ty
- f iv e y e a r s a n d o n e d a y in p r is o n a n d a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 fine. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003)
. Appellant contends that the trial court err ed b y ad m i t t i n g a witness’s out-of-c ourt statement for impeachme nt a nd then failing to limi t its consideration to that purpose. H e also asserts that he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. We will affirm the judgme nt of conviction.
BACK GR OUND

J ose Va lencia w as employ ed at a n Elg in convenienc e store. A round midnight on September 30, 2003, Valenc ia and Irfr an Rehman, the store owne r, we re c losing the store when thre e men enter ed with banda nas covering their fa ces. O ne of the se men, who w as we aringa re d2

sw e a tsh ir t, p oin te d a

pis tol a t Re hm an’s head a nd de mand e d mo ne y . V a le nc ia wa s o rd e re d to lie
on the fl oo r. Af

te r t a kin g mon ey

fr om t he c a shre g ist e r a

nd sa fe , th e arm e d ma

n s ho t V a le nc ia

in the bac k and the a s s ail ants fled. Ne ither Rehman nor Valenc ia, who sustained se rious perma nent inj ur ie s, wa s a

ble to i de nti fy

the ro bb e rs . Re hma n te sti fi e d th a t pa

rt of Va le nc ia ’s nig htl y

ro uti ne wa s to cle a n the sto re ’s g la ss d o o r s , an d

h e s a i d t h a th e d i s t i n c t l y r e m e m b e r e d s e e i n g V a l e n c i a d o t h i s b e f

o r e t h e r o b b e r

y. Valenc ia also re called c leaning the doors, both inside and out. Rehman f urther te stified that he
no tic e d th a t th e a rm e d r ob be r i n th e re d s we a tsh ir t w a s n ot w e a ri ngg lov e s. Pol ic e fo un d a pa lm pri nt and a

fi ng e r p ri nt o n th e ins ide of the fr on t do or , ju st a

bo ve the pu shba

r. An e xpe rt ana ly st te sti fi e d th a t th e se pr int s matc he d a pp e lla nt’ s k no wn pr int s. Sheriff’ s deputies patrolling roads be tween E lgin a nd Ba strop wer e ale rted to be on the watch for a red car that had been descr ibed by a witness. Although the deputies did not see suc h a vehic le, they

did find two bandana s and three sweatshirts discarded along the side of a road. The
sweatshirts were r ed, ora

ng e, and g ray . DNA samp l es t ak en fr o m the bandana s and fr om the red
sweatshirt were shown to match appe llant’s DNA.

Appellant wa s arr ested on the m orning afte r t he robbery at t he home of his g irlfriend, Kimberli Crawf

ord. A red Pontiac Gra

nd Am matching the desc ription of the suspect ve hicle wa s parke d at Crawf

ord’s house. Crawf

ord testified that the car had been rente d by her sister- in-law, a

nd that appellant wa s driving it on the nig ht of September 30. Cra wford sa id Anthony

Huber t and Br andon B enfor d wer e visiting a ppellant at her house that night, and that all three men left in the re d Pontiac at about 10:00 p.m. Be fore he lef t, appellant took something from a c loset that Crawfor d did not clear ly see. She descr ibed it a s “[s] omething y ou could hold in y our hand. I t wasn’t big .”3

Crawf ord said that appe llant had a pistol six months earlier , but she did n o t k now if that wa s the object she saw. Appellant returne d to Cra wford’ s house at about 3:00 a .m. a nd was “ acting funny .” L ater that morning , Crawf

ord noticed a s h eriff

’s vehicle drive pa st her house twic e. When she mentioned this to appellant, he told her “ they wer e coming to ge t him about a Smit hville robbery .” Acting on information re ceive d from Anthony Huber t following his ar re s t , police div e rs fo un d a .25 c a lib e r pis tol in t he Col or a do Riv e r b e low a br idg e ou tsi de B a str op . A fi re a rm s
e xpe rt te sti fi e d th a t a

sh e ll c a sin g fo un d at the sc e ne of the ro bb e ry c ou ld have be e n fir e d f ro m th is
we a po n, bu t th e c on dit ion

of the pis tol pr e ve nte d a

c on c lus ive te st.
DI SCU SSIO N Out -o f-c our t s ta te m e nt

I n his first point of error , appellant c ontends that the t rial court errone ously permitted the Sta te to e va de the he a rs a y ru le by int ro du c ing the ou t- of

-c ourt state me nt of its own witne ss, Br andon B enfor d, in the g uise of impeac hment. He ur g es that the e rror was c ompounded by

the court’s f ailure to g ive a limiting instruction, there by allowing the jury to c onsider the statement as substantive evidenc e.

After calling Be nford as a witness and a sking him his name a nd ag e, the pr osecutor sho we d h i m a document mar ked State exhibit 40 and asked him if he re cog nized it as a written statement he g ave to a

n Elg in police off

icer . Be nford de nied making the statement but admitted that the document bore his sig nature
. The prosec utor then questioned B enfor d reg ardinghis actions on September 30. F or the most part , Be n fo rd p ro fesse d to have no c lear memory of that nig ht. He testified that he, a

ppellant, Huber

t, and B randon Clemons we re “ hang ing out,” an d t h at h e g ave4

appellant a

red swe at er t o we ar . He sa id that he did not see a ppellant with a g un. On seve ral
occa sions, the prosecutor

asked B enfor d if his testimony differ ed fr om his written statement or fr om statements he made during an intervie w with the prosec utor the pre vious day . Once , defe nse counse l objected to this as improper impeachme nt and the objec tion was sustained. The State’s ne x t witness was Elg in police lieutenant Car los Araujo. The office r testif i ed reg ardinghis role in the investig ation of the robbe ry , which included taking a written statement fr om Be nford. Ar aujo identified exhibi t 40 as Be nford’ s statement. The of fice r testified that he wr ote down the infor mation as Be nford related it and w atche d as B enfor d signe d eac h pag e. He sa id t hat B e nf or d w a s ly

ingif he denie d ma

kin g the state me nt. Th e Sta te the n o ff e re d e xhibi t 40 in evidence “under

the rules of

impeachme nt.” Appellant’ s hear say objection was sustaine d. The State then r eca lled Be nford. Af ter showinghim e x hibit 40 and telling him that “this purports to be a w ritten statement g iven by y ou,” the pr osecutor a sked B enfor d a ser ies of questions based on the c ontents of the exhibit , eac h of which be g an, “D id y ou make the statement . . . .” F or example, Be nford wa s asked: “D id y o u m ak e t h e s t at em ent . . . I was at Kim and Der reck ’s house c hilling by

watchingTV”; “ Did y ou make the statement Der rec k went inside the house. When he re turned back to the car he had a littl e .25 pistol”; and “D id y ou make the statement

. . . th a t I a sk e d [H ub e rt ] w hat ha

pp e ne d a nd he tol d me that De rr e c k sh ot a du de on the ba c k o f h is
n e c k
. ” B e n f

o r d d e n ie d ma

k in g th e s e a n d a ll th e o th e r s tate me n ts r e c it e d b y th e prosec utor. The prosec utor then g ave B enfor d the exhibi t to rea d for himself and asked him if it wa s true. B enfor d
answe red that, for the most part, the statement was not true
.

After Be nford’ s testimony

conclude d, the S tate aga in offe red ex hibit 40 in evidence
. Appellant ag ain objecte d to it as hearsay
. The court asked if the re w ere any other objec tions. W hen5

counsel said no, the court over ruled the he arsa

y objection and a dmitted ex hibit 40 in evidence. No limit ing instruc t i o n was re quested or g iven, either at the time the exhibit was admitted or in the court’s jury

char g e. Br iefly summarized, Be n ford’ s out-of-c ourt statement re counts how he spe nt the eveningof September

30, 2003, driving around w ith appellant, Huber t, and Clemons in appellant’s red c ar. H ubert wa s wea

ring a g ray sweater and Clemons wa s wea ring an orang e sweater. Around 10:00 p.m., appellant told the others, “I ’m fix ing to do something beca use I need some money .” A p p e ll an t w e n t in to Cr a w f o r d ’ s h o u s e a n d r e tu

r n e d w it h “ a li tt le
. 2 5 p is to l. ” A s a p p e ll a nt beg an driving toward Elg in, Be nford a sked to be droppe d off at his uncle’s gi rl fr i end’s house . Be fore g etting out of t he car, Benf ord l et appellant borrow his red sweater
. The nex t morning , afte r hea ring that the police ha d been a t appellant’s house , Be nford c alled Hube rt and as k ed h i m what had happene d. Huber

t did not want to talk, but said “I didn’t do it, Derre ck did it.” A fe w hours later , Be nford spoke to Hubert a g ain and wa s told, “Derr eck shot a dude on the ba ck of his nec k.” B e nf or d’ s o ut- of

-c ourt state me nt w a s h e a rs a y

a nd , in the a bs e nc e of a n a pp lic a ble hear say exception, inadmissibl e to prove the t ru t h o f t h e matters stated. Tex. R. Evid. 802. The parties a g ree that the s tatement wa s offe red in e vidence pursuant to rule 613( a), w hich per mits t he use of a witness’s out-of- court stateme nt for impeac hment. Tex. R. E v i d
. 6 1 3 (a ). Appellant contends that the a dmission of the statement was e rror beca use t he S tate wa s using impea chment as
a su bte rf ug e to a vo id t he he a rs a y

ru le . App e lla

nt r e lie s o n c a se s h old ingthat a pa rt y may no t ca ll
a wi tne ss i t kn ow s to be ho sti le fo r t he pri mar y pu rpose of

e lic iti ngoth e rw ise ina dmi ssi ble impeachme nt evidence
. Se e Hu gh es v . S tat e , 4 S.W. 3d 1, 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Arric k v . S tat e , 107 S.W .3d 710, 722 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pe t. r ef’ d). I n such a c ase, the party profits from6

the wi tne ss’ s te sti mon

y on ly if the jur y mis us e s th e imp e a c hin g e vid e nc e by consid e ri ngit f or its tr uth , a nd thu s any

pr ob a tiv e va lue the imp e a c hme nt e vid e nc e mig ht h a ve is s ub sta nti a lly
ou tw e ig he d b y

its pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t. T e x. R. E vid . 4 03 ; Hughes , 4 S.W. 3d a t 5; Ra mi re

z v . S tat e , 987 S.W .2d 938, 944 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). The St ate r esponds that no rule 403 e rror is shown beca

use it did not know in advance that Be nford would testify as he did. S

ee B arley v

. Sta te , 9 06 S.W. 2d

27 , 3 7 n .1 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Ke lly v . S tat e , 6 0 S. W. 3 d

2 9 9 , 3 0 2 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2001, no pe t.). The State al s o n o t es that appellant did not re quest a limiting ins tr uc tio n r e g a rd ingthe state me nt.

We d o n ot d e c ide wh e the r t he a dmi ssi on

of B e nf or d’ s p ri or

state me nt v iol a te d r

ule 403 beca use appe llant did not object to its admission on that gr ound. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). A nd
we a gre e wi t h t h e State that appellant c annot complain of the absenc e of a limit ing instruc tion beca use he did not ask f

or one. Te x . R. Evid. 105(a). Point of err or one is over ruled.
Ef fectiveness of trial counsel

I n p oin t of

e rr or tw o, a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t hi s a tto rn e y ’s fa ilur e to r e qu e st a limit ing instruc tion with respect to B enfor d’s prior state ment const i t u t ed ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel. He als o co m p l ains of counse l’s failure to object to the State’s questioning of anothe r wi tne ss, An tho ny

Hu be rt
. Th e re c or d re fl e c ts that, t wo mon ths be fo re a

pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l, H ub e rt

ple a de d guil ty to this offense a

nd was sente nced to twe nty y ear s in prison. After c alling H ubert as a w itness, and
ou tsi de the jur

y ’s pr e se nc e , the State ind ic a te d tha t it wo uld no t us e Hu

be rt ’s te sti mony a g a ins t hi m in any other prose cution. The trial court then order ed Hube rt to answer the State’s questions. Afte r7

t h e j u r y r e tu r n e d t o t h e c o u rt r o o m , t h e p r o s e c u t o r a s k e d H u b e rta t o t a l o f f o u r t e e n q u e s t i o n s . In defia nce of the court’s order , Huber t r efuse d to a

nswer any

of them. Among the questions Huber t
was a s k ed but refuse d to answer wer e whe ther a

document not in evidenc e (r efe rre d to by the p ro secutor as State exhibi t 39) was his w ritten confe ssion a nd whether he reme mbere d t el l i n g a p o li c e o f f ic e r th a t h e “ r e a ll y d id

n ’ t w a n t to g o o n th e r o b b e r y w it h D e r r e c k G a lv a n . ” Appe llant argues that his attorney

should have objec ted to this use of Huber t’s out-of-c ourt statement on he ars ay and ru le 40 3 g ro un ds
. There is a two-prong ed test for inef fec tiveness: it mustbe shown that c ounsel made such ser ious error s that she was not func tioning ef fec tively as counse l and th at these e rror s prejudice d appellant’ s defe nse to such a de g ree that he wa s deprived of a fa ir trial, that is, a trial whose re s u l t is reliable. See Strick land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hernande z v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 770, 771-72 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999). W e must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide rang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance. J ac k so n v . S tat e , 877 S
. W
. 2 d 7 6 8 , 7 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). To overc ome this presumption, any alleg ation of ine ff e c tiv e ne ss m

us t be fi rm ly fo un de d in the re c or d a nd the re c or d mus t a ff ir ma tiv e ly de mon str a te the alleg ed inef

fec tiveness. Ma lle tt v. St ate , 6 5 S. W.3 d 5 9, 63 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ). I n mo st
case s, the rec ord on direc t appea l is undeveloped a nd cannot a dequate ly

ref lect the motives behind trial counsel’ s actions. Id . T he Sta te argue s th a t su c h is th e case here . App e lla nt d id n ot r a ise i n ef fe ct i v en es s i n h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al an d t h e re co rd i s s i l en t as t o t ri al co u n s el ’s t ri al s t ra t egy
and ta c tic s. Th e Sta te ur g e s tha t w e mus t pr e su me that c ouns e l’ s c on du c t a t tr ia l ha d a so un d b a sis
. Se e Bras he r v . S

tat e , 1 3 9 S
. W
. 3 d

3 6 9 , 3 7 2 -7 3 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 2 0 0 4 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Ex parte Varelas , 45 S.W .3d 627, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)).I n a related complaint, appellant contends that his attorney failed to prope rly object whe n the 1 prosec utor, during jury

argument, ref

err ed to statements of fact conta ined in Be nford’ s out-of-c ourt state me nt. B e c a

us e the state me nt h a d be e n a dmi tte d in e vid e nc e wi tho ut l imi ta tio n, its us e in t his mann e r w as no t ob

jec ti on a ble . T he Sta te ’s a

bil ity to u se B e nf

or d’ s st a te me nt i n th is m a nn e r i s rele vant, howeve r, in deter mining whe ther c ounsel’s fa ilure to reque st a l i m i ting instruction prejudice d appellant’ s defe nse. 8

Counsel objected to the a dmission of Benf ord’s out-of

-cour t statement on t he g round that it was hea

rsay , which it plainly

was. I t is obvious from this objection that counse l did not want the stat e me n t to b e a d mi tt e d f o r th e tr u th o f th e matt e r s s tate d
. T h u s , a f te r th e s tate me n t w as admitted for impea chment purpose s under r ule 613(a ), it is diff

icult to imag ine a strateg ic or tac tical
rea son for c o u n s el n o t t o reque st a limit ing instruc tion to prevent the jury ’s consider ation of the state me nt a s su

bs tanti ve evi de nc e . I t is sim ila rl y dif fi c ult to e xpla in d e fe ns e c ouns e l’ s f a ilure to 1 ob je c t w he n th e pr osec uto r r e a d a pa rt of Hu be rt ’s ou t- of

-c ourt state me nt i n v iol a tio n o f t he ru le ag ainst hear say . This use of the statement wa s not even a rg uably justifiable as impeac hment since Huber t h ad flatly

ref used to testify . But we need not de cide whe ther c ounsel’s per formanc e wa s within the broad ra

ng e of r easona

ble profe ssional assistance be cause , even if it wa s not, appellant has not demonstrate d that there is a rea sonable proba bility that the result of t he trial would have bee n differ ent but for c ounsel’s er rors. Se e Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Be nford’ s out-of-c ourt statement was the only evidenc e plac ing in a

ppellant’s hands a .25 ca liber pistol like that used i n the robbery
. The statement also descr ibed appe llant’s plan to do something to ra ise money and Hube rt’s statement to B enfor d that appellant ha d shot someone in the ba c k. On the oth e r ha

nd , a pp e lla nt’ s p a rt ic ipatio n in

the ro bb e ry

wa s sh ow n b y

the pr e se nc e of

his pa lm a nd fi ng e r pr int s on the fr e sh ly c le a ne d do or of the sto re . App e lla

nt’ s id e nti ty

a s th e ro bb e r i n9

the re d sweatshirt who shot Valencia was shown by

Be nford’ s in-court test imony and by the pre sence of appellant’ s DNA on the re d sweatshirt and bandana s found on the roa d to Ba strop following the robber y . And throug h Crawf

ord’s testimony , the S tate proved that appellant was driving a re d car of the sort see n by

witnesses, that he took “ something” that may have been a pistol whe n he left her h o u s e t h at n i gh t , an d

t h at h e m ad e a n i n cr i m i n at i n g s t at em en tt o C ra wf o rd t h e n ex tm o rn i n g. Al tho ug h th e qu e sti on

is a c los e on e , w e c on c lud e that it is n ot r e a so na

bly pr ob a ble that th e ou tc ome of

a pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l w ou ld h a ve be e n d if fe re nt h a d th e jur

y be e n in str

ucted no t to consider B enfor d’s out-of- court stateme nt as substantive ev i d ence and if the jury had not hea

rd Huber t’s out-of-c ourt statement linking appellant to the robber y . We hold that a

ppellant has fa iled to satisfy his burden of pe rsuasion with reg ard to Strickland’s se c on d pr on g . Poi nt of e rr or tw o is
overr uled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

_________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Apr il 20, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh