1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 07- 322- CR 2- 07- 323- CR K E L L E Y CA M AC HO AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 16TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A ppe l l antKel l ey C am ac ho app ea l s her t w o con vi ct i onsf orpos se ss i on of fo u r g ra m so r m o re b u t l e s sth a n 2 0 0 g ra m so f m e th a m p h e ta m i n e . W e a ffir m .2 I I . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts I n M ar ch 200 6, a con f i den t i ali nf or m ant( “CI ”) w or ki ng w i t h t he D ent on C oun t y S her i f f ’ s O f f i ce pi cked up Jacki e Pat t er son and dr ove hi m t o a 7- El even i n Le w i sv i l l e . W h e n th e yarri v e d , P a tterso n m e t ap p e l l a n t, w h o h a d ag ree d to se l l hi m a qua rt ero un ce o fm et ham phe t am i ne. As t he C I w ai t ed, Patt er so n cl i m bed i nt o a ppe l l ant ’ s ca ran d r odew i t h he rt o a t r ai l erpa r k i n Fl ow erM ound, w h e re s h e o b ta i n e d a q u a rte r o u n c e o f m e th a m p h e ta m i n e fo r h i m b e fo re r et ur ni ng hi m t o t he 7
- El even. W hen t he C I co n fi r m ed t hatPat t er son had pur cha se d m et ham phe t am i ne , of f i ce r s m ove d i n, ar r es t i ng Pa t t er so n a nd a p p e l l a n t. U p o n se a rch i n g ap p e l la n t, the o ffi c e rs fou n d a g l a ss p i p e w i th m e tham phetam i ne r esi due i n herapr on. I n herpur se, t hey f oun d a bl ack z i ppe r ed bag co nt ai ni ng di gi t al s ca l es , pl as t i c b ags , m ar i hua na, an d m et ham phe t am i ne. W hen t he of f i cer s f r i sk ed Patt er so n, t heyf ound app r oxi m at el y e i ghtgr am s— sl i ght l y m or e t han a qua rt erounc e— of m et ham phetam i ne i n hi s pocket s. I n Jul y, aft erhe rr el ea seon b ond, ap pel l antar r ang ed ano t herdr ug t r ans ac t i on i n w hi ch sh e agr ee d t o se l l f ourgr am s ofm et ham phe t am i ne t o t he e m p l o y e r o f a s e c o n d c o n fi d e n ti a l i n fo rm a n t (“ C I2 " ).3

P osi ng as t he em pl oyer , an und er cover of f i cer ( “U O ”) w ent w i t h C I 2 to app el l ant ’ s apa rt m ent . O ncei ns i de, appel l antdi r ec t ed U O an d CI 2 t o t he bed r oom . UO s how ed app el l antt hr eehund r ed dol l ar s i n c ash, an d a ppe l l ant m o ti o n e d fo r h i m to l a yi t o n a d e s k . U O w a tc h e d a sa p p e l l a n t w e i g h e d 4 .6 gr am s ofm et ham phetam i ne and seti ton t he desk. A s U O p i cked up t he dr ugs, of f i ce r s ent er ed t he apa rt m ent , and ar r es t ed app el l ant . Appel l ant ’ s t ee nag e son, w ho w a sp r e s e ntd ur i ng t hea r r e s t , t he n di r e c t e d t heo f f i c e r st o an add i t i ona l 0. 4 gr am s ofm et ham phe t am i ne i n a ppe l l ant ’ s bed r oom . The St at e c har ged ap pel l anti n s epa r at e i ndi ct m ent s f ort he M ar ch and Jul y dr ug s al es . Ea ch i ndi ct m ent con t ai ned an enh anc em entpa r agr aph al l egi ng t hatappel l anthad a pr i orconvi ct i on f or a f el ony d r ug off ense. The t w o cases w er e consol i dat ed f or t r i al . A j ur y r et ur ned ver di ct s ofgui l t y on each, and af t er hear i ng evi dence on pun i shm ent , asses sed t hi rt y year s’ conf i nem entf oreach con vi ct i on. The t r i alco urts ent enc ed app el l antacco r di ngl y, or der i ng t he s e n t e n c e st o ru n c o n c u r r e n t ly . A p p e lla n tb r in g sf if t e e n p o in t so n a p p e a l. II I. P ri o r C o n v i c ti o n E v i d e n c eA d m itte d B e fo re Enh ancem entPar agr aphs R ead I n t hr eepoi nt s, ap pel l ants ee ksa r eve r sa l f ora new puni sh m enthe ar i ng bec aus e evi den ce of her pr i or con vi ct i on w as adm i t t ed bef or e t he St at e r ea d t he enh anc em entpa r agr aph s al l egi ng t hatco nvi ct i on t o t he j ury.2 ... T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Mosleyv. S tate , 983 S. W . 2d 249, 265

(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ), cert. denied, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 0 7 0 (1 9 9 9 ).

3 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Hei del b erg v. S tate , 144 S. W . 3d 535, 5 3 7 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); Ri d g ev. S tate , 855 S . W . 2d 234, 235 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 3 , n o p e t.). 4 I n he rf i r stpoi nt , ap pel l antcl ai m s t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by l ett i ng t he j ury c ons i derev i den ceoft he pri or c onvi ct i on be f or e t he pr os ec ut orr ea d t he e n h a n c e m e n tp a r a g r a p h st o t h e ju r y . A p p e lla n t , h o w e v e r , h a sf o r f e it e d t h is com pl ai nt . To pr es erve a co m pl ai ntf orourr evi ew , a part y m us tha ve pr es ent ed t o t he t r i alco urta t i m el y r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on t hats t at est he sp ec i f i c g r oundsf ort he des i r ed r ul i ng i ft heyar e n otap par entf r om t he con t ext oft he r equ es t , obj ec t i on, orm ot i on. 2W h e n t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d S t a t e ’s E x h ib it 36 asev i den ceofap pel l ant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on, appel l antobj ec t ed onl y t hatt he exhi bi t had not“been t i ed t o [ her ] by f i nger pr i nt s orany ot heri denti f i er s. ” W e hol d t hatt hi s obj ec t i on w asi ns uf f i ci entt o pr es erve app el l ant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he t r i al cou rt er r ed by a l l ow i ng t he j ury t o c ons i derev i den ceofhe rpr i orco nvi ct i on b e f o r e t h e e n h a n c e m e n tp a r a g r a p h sw e r e re a d . A c c o r d in g ly , w e o v e r r u le a p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. 3 S i m i l ar l y, i n hersecond and t hi r d poi nt s, appel l antcont ends t hatt he t r i al cou rter r ed by n otex cl udi ng, or at l ea st i ns t r uct i ng t he j ury t o di sr ega r d, al l t he t es t i m ony t he St at e pr es ent ed bef or e t he enh anc em entpa r agr aph s w er e r ea d.4 ... S ee Di l l v. State, 6 9 7 S .W .2 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 9 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti 19 85 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng er r or pr eserved w hen defendantasked t hatevi dence h e a rd b e fo re th e p l e a b e re m o v e d fro m th e j u ry 'sc o n s i d e ra ti o n ).

5 ... S eeT ex . R . A pp . P. 33 . 1 ( a)( 1 ); L a y to n v. S tate , 280 S. W . 3d 235, 2 3 8

– 3 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). 5 T h e re c o rd s h o w s , h o w e v e r, th a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t re q u e s t th a t th e tri a l c o u rt exc l udeori ns t r uctt he j ury t o di sr ega r d t he t es t i m ony bef or e t he enh anc em ent par agr aph s w er e r ea d. 4C o n s e q u e n t ly , a p p e lla n td id n o tp r e s e rv e t h e s e c la im s f orourr evi ew . W e over r ul e appel l ant ’ s second and t hi r d poi nt s. 5 I V . Chem i st ’ s Tes t i m ony I n h e r fo u rt h p o i n t, a p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t th e tr i a l c o u rt v i o l a ted h e r r i g h ts unde rt he C onf r ont at i on Cl aus e b y adm i t t i ng t es t i m ony f r om one ch em i stab out l a b o ra to ryre s u l ts o b ta i n e d b ya n o th e r c h e m i s t w h o d i d n o t te s ti fya t a p p e l l a n t’s t r ia l. T h e s u b s ta n c e s re c o v e re d d u ri n g a p p e l l a n t’s M a rc h a n d J u l ya rre s ts w e re ana l yz ed att he Texa s D epa rt m entofPubl i c Saf et y L abo r at ory i n Gar l and . DPS c h e m i st D rew F o u t pe rso n a l l yan a l y ze d the su b sta n c e s fr o m th e M a rch arres t, b u ta n o t h e rc h e m is tf r o m t h e s a m e la b a n a ly z e d t h e s u b s t a n c e sre c o v e r e d in J u l y . F o u t t e sti fi e d at a p p e l l a n t’ s tri a l , b u t t h e o th e r ch e m i st d i d n o t. Fout expl ai ned t hathe and t he non t est i f yi ng chem i sthad used t he sam e m et hod s t o anal yze t he subst ances sei zed dur i ng t he M ar ch and Jul y ar r est s.6

H e t est i f i ed t hatal l chem i st s at t he G ar l and D PS l ab ar e t r ai ned t he sam e w ay a n d t h a tp a rt o f h i stra i n i n g h a d b e e n d e v o te d to o b s e rv i n g th e m o re exp er i enc ed nont es t i f yi ng chem i st , w ho had w or ke d a tt he D PS l ab f ort w ent yf i ve year s. H e t es t i f i ed f urt her , t hat , asan ex pert , hew ast r ai ne d t o eva l uat e t he w or k o fo t herex pert s and then to draw h i s ow n concl usi ons. H e had r evi ew ed t he nont es t i f yi ng c hem i st ’ s ca senot esan d c hart s gen er at ed dur i ng he rt es t i ng oft he su bs t anc essei z ed dur i ng appe l l ant ’ s Jul y a r r es tbe f or e f or m i ng hi s ow n opi ni on about t he r esul t s ofherw or k. Based upo n hi s r evi ew , he opi ned t hat t he exhi bi t s she anal yzed— S t at e’ s Exhi bi t s 22 , 26 , 27 , and 3 1— al l cont ai ned m e th a m p h e tam i n e . F u rt h e r, h e tes ti fi e d tha t t h e n e t w e i g h ts o f t h e ex h i b i ts w e re 3 .9 3 , 0 .2 0 , 1 .3 9 , a n d 0 .3 5 g ra m s , re s p e c ti v e l y . A ppe l l antobj ec t ed t o Fo ut ’ s t es t i m ony abo utt he m et hodst he non t est i f yi ng chem i stused and t he w ei ghtso fthe exh i bi t s. She al so obj ect ed t o t hea dm i s s i on o ft hed r ug e xh i bi t s — St a t e ’ sE xh i bi t s22, 26, 27, a nd 31. A ppel l ant conced es, how ever , t hat she di d not obj ect t o Fou t ’ s t est i m ony that t he com posi t i on of t he exhi bi t s cont ai ned m et ham phetam i ne. A s a r es ul tofhe rf ai l ur e t o obj ec t t o t hi s evi den ce , her com pl ai ntt hatt he t r i al courter r ed by adm i t t i ng Fo ut ’ s t est i m ony thatt he exhi bi t s cont ai ned6 ... S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Melendez-D i az v. Mass. , 1 2 9 S . C t. 252 7, 2534 ( 200 9) ( “Ther i ghtt o c onf r ont at i on m ay, ofco urs e, bew ai ved , i n c l u d i n g b yfa i l u re to o bj e c t to th e o ffe n d i n g e v i d e n c e . . . ” ).

7 ... 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 1 2 4S . C t. 1 3 5 4(2 0 0 4 ). 8 ... Id . a t68, 124 S. Ct . a t1374 . 7 me t h a mp h e t a mi n e i sn o tp r e s e rv e d f o ro u rr e v i e w. 6Accor di ngl y, w e l i m i tour anal ysi s t o Fou t ’ s t est i m ony ab out t he m et hod s t he non t esti fyi ng chem i st e m pl oy e d; t het r i a l c ou rt ’ sa dm i s s i on o fSt a t e ’ sE xh i bi t s22, 2 6, 2 7, a nd 31; and Fo ut ’ s t est i m ony ab out t he w ei ghtsoft he subst ances i n t hose exhi bi t s. A ppe l l antas se rt s t hathe ri nab i l i t y t o c r os s- exa m i ne t he nont es t i f yi ng c h e m i st w h o p e rf o rm e d the t e s tin g rath e r t h a n F o u t vi o l a ted h e r r i g h t t o c o n fro n t w i tn e s s e su n d e r Crawf ord v. W

ashi ngton . 7 I n Cra wfo rd, t he U ni t ed St at esSupr em e Courthe l d t hatad m i t t i ng a st at em ent m ade by a n ont es t i f yi ng decl ar antof f ends t he C onfr o n tat i on C l ause oft he S i xt h A m endm enti fi tw as “t es t i m oni al ” w hen m adean d t he def end antl ac ke d a pr i oroppo rt uni t y f or cr os s- exa m i nat i on. 8T h u s , Cra wfo rd a p p l i e s t o a n o n tes ti fying d e c l a ran t’ s o u to f -c o u rts t a t e m e n t st h a ta r e t e s t im o n ia l. Fout’ s t est i m ony ab out t he m et h o d s u se d by t he non t est i f yi ng chem i st i s notgover ned by Cra wfo rd, how ever , because no ou t - of
- courtst at em entw as a d m i tte d t h ro u g h t h i sp a rt o f h i st e s ti m o n y . R a th e r, th e te s ti m o n yw a sF o u t’s i n- cou rts t at em entba se d upo n hi s ow n pe r so nalkn ow l edg e ac qui r ed f r om9 ... T e x . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 (a ). 10 ... F e d . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 (a ). 8 hav i ng t r ai ned an d w or ke d a tt he D PS l abo r at ory. The Si xt h Am endm ent con ce r nsati ss ue i n Cra wfo rd, th e re fo re , d o n o t a p p l yto th i sp o rti o n o f F o u t’s t es t i m ony. N ordo t hose concer ns appl y t o t he bagg i es ofcont r ol l ed subst ances adm i t t ed as St at e’ s Exhi bi t s 22 , 26 , 27 , and 3 1 b ecause Cra wfo rd a p p lie so n ly t o “st at em ent s. ” A “st at em ent ” i s defi ned byTexas R ul e ofEvi dence 8 01 ( a) a s “ (1 ) a n o ral o r w ri tten v e rba l ex p res sion o r ( 2 ) n o n v e rba l co n d u c t of a p e r s o n , i f i t i si n te n d e d b yth e p e rs o n a sa s u b s ti tu te fo r v e rb a l e x p re s s i o n .” 9 S i m i l ar l y, Feder al Ru l e ofEvi dence 80 1( a) d ef i nes a st at em entas an “( 1) an or al orw r i t t en as se rt i on or( 2) nonv er balco nduc tofa per so n i fi ti s i nt end ed by t he p e rs o n a sa n a s s e rti o n .” 10Bagg i es of c ont r ol l ed su bs t anc esar e n otor al or w ri tte n v e rb a l e x p re s s i o n s , th e y a re n o t o ra l o r w ri tte n a s s e rti o n s , a n d th e ya re notnonv er balco nduc t ; t her ef or e, t heyar e n ot s t at em ent s. Accor di ngl y, t he t r i al co urt ’ s adm i ss i on of t he exh i bi t s di d noti m pl i ca t e a ppe l l ant ’ s con f r ont at i on r i ghts .11 ... R e c e n tl y , th e U n i ted S tate s S u p rem e C o u rth a s h e l d tha t a c e rt i fi c a te

ofa st at e l abo r at ory a nal ysts t at i ng t hatm at er i als ei z ed by p ol i cean d c o n n e c t e d t o a c r im in a l d e f e n d a n tisc o c a i n e o fa c e rt a in q u a n t it yis “t est i m oni al ” evi dence subj ectt o t he dem ands ofthe C onfr ontat i on C l ause as se tf ort h i n Cra wfo rd . Melendez-D i az , 1 29 S. C t . at2529 . I n Melendez-D i az , i n a pr osecut i on f ordr ug t r af f i cki ng, t he st at e had subm i tt ed t hr ee “cert i f i cat es ofa nal ysi s” s how i ng t he r esul t s off or ensi c t est i ng per f or m ed on subst ances s e i z e d fro m th e d e fe n d a n t. Id at25 31 . The anal ystoranal yst s w ho pr epar ed th e c e rti fi c a te sd i d n o t te s ti fya t tri a l . See i d. 9 Tu r ni ng t o Fo ut ’ s t e s t i m on y a bo utt he wei gh tsoft hose exhi bi t s, as d e term i n e d o u t- o f- c o u rt b y th e n o n tes ti fying ex p e rt , 11 w e n eed not r each t hat i ssue because ot herevi dence of t he dr ugs’ w ei ghtscam e i n f r om ot hersour ces w i t houtobj ec t i on. Thus , t he adm i ss i on oft hi s partofFout ’ s t es t i m ony had no ef f ec ton a ppe l l ant ’ s con vi ct i on or her puni sh m ent . By t he t i m e F outt es t i f i ed, t he St at e had al r ea dy pr es ent ed, w i t houtobj ec t i on, ev i den cet hatt he am ount a pp e l l a nts ol d i n Ju l y w a sa tl e a s tf ou rg r a m s . Se r ge a ntJ e f fDav i st est i f i ed t hatt he pl an f ort he unde r cov erope r at i on w ast o pur cha sef ourgr am s of m et ham phetam i ne f r om appel l ant . I n addi t i on, t he U O t est i fi e d th a t t he deal n e g o ti a te d w i th a p p e l l a n t w a sto p u rc h a s e fo u r g ra m sfo r $ 3 0 0 . F u rt h e r, dur i ng a t el eph one con ver sa t i on r ec or ded bet w ee n app el l ant and CI 2, ap pel l ant t ol d CI 2 t ha t s he ha d f ou r gr a m s r e a dy t o s e l l f or $300. Th e UO i denti f i ed St at e’ s Exhi bi t22 ast he bag ofm et ham phe t am i ne t hathe had pur cha se d f r om app el l ant . He t es t i f i ed t hat he per so nal l y w i t nes se d her w ei ghi ng t he am ount12 ... S e eCl a yv. S tate , 2 4 0 S .W .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); D a vis v. S tate , 2 0 3 S .W .3 d 8 4 5 , 8 5 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ), cert. denied, 5 4 9 U .S . 1 3 4 4(2 0 0 7 ).

13 ... S e eW

i l so nv. S tate , 7 S .W .3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 1 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Jo hn so nv. S tate , 9 6 7 S .W .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 10 he bou ght f r om h eran d t hatt he scal e di spl ayed 4 . 6 g r am s. A l so, he t est i f i ed t hat , i n a ddi t i on t o St at e’ s Ex hi bi t2 2, hes ei z ed f r om ap pel l ant ’ s apa rt m ent bag gi esofm et ham phe t am i ne t hathe i den t i f i ed as St at e’ s Exhi bi t s 26, 27, an d 31. Ser gea ntD av i s t es t i f i ed t hat , aft erap pel l ant ’ s ar r es t , ap pel l ant ’ s so n poi nt ed outa qua nt i t y ofm et ham phe t am i ne i n a ppe l l ant ’ s bed r oom w ei ghi ng 0. 4 g r am s, w h i c h t he ser geant i denti f i ed att r i al as St at e’ s Exhi bi t31 . Thu s, eve n w i t houtFout ’ s t es t i m ony, t he St at e pr es ent ed evi den ceshow i ng t hatt he a m o u n t w a s o v e r f o u r gra m s. W e h o l d , th e refo re, th a t F o u t’ s te sti m o n yas to th e w e i g h t o f th e s u b s ta n c e ss e i z e d i n J u l yh a d n o e ffe c t o n th e ju ry ’s del i ber at i ons. 12Appel l ant ’ s f ourt h poi nti s ove r r ul ed. V . Suff i ci ency of t he Evi dence I n he rf i f t h, s i xt h, an d f i ft ee nt h poi nt s, app el l an ta sk s ust o r evi ew t he su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cew i t houtce rt ai n ev i de nc e shecl ai m s sh oul d ha ve b e e n e x c l u d e d . I n c o n d u c ti n g s u fficie n c y re v i e w s i n c ri m i n a l c a s e s , h o w e v e r, w e c ons i deral l ev i den cew het herornotpr ope r l y a dm i t t ed. 1314 ... Th e t ot al w ei ght oft he d rug s recover ed dur i ng t he Jul y ar r estw as

5. 87 gr am s. St at e’ s Exhi bi t22 w ei g h e d 3 .9 3 , Stat e’ s Exhi bi t26 w ei ghed 0. 2 0 , S t a t e ’ sE x h i b i t2 7 we i g h e d 1 . 3 9 , a n d S t a t e ’ sE x h i b i t3 1 we i g h e d 0 . 35 gr am s. 11 W it h re g a r d t o a p p e lla n t ’s f if t h a n d s ix t h p o in t s , t h e e v id e n c e w a sle g a lly and f act ual l y su f f i ci entt o show t hatt he quan t i t y ofm et ham phetam i ne t hat app el l ants ol d t o t he U O w asatl ea stf ourgr am s. Fo uttesti f i ed t hatt he am oun t s sei zed f r om appel l ant ’ s apart m entdur i ng t he Jul y ar r est s and adm i t t ed asSt at e’ s Exhi bi t s 2 2 , 2 6, 27, an d 31 had a com bi ned w ei ghtofove rf i ve gr am s. 14I n addi t i on, ot herevi dence show ed t hatt he m et ham phetam i ne sei zed i n Ju l y w asatl ea stf ourgr am s. The pl an oft he ope r at i on w ast o pur cha sef our gr am s ofm et ham phe t am i ne f r om ap pel l an t . A ppe l l antca n behe ar d on a r ec or ded t el eph oneca l l t el l i ng CI 2 t hats he had f ourgr am s r ea dy t o s el l . The U O s aw ap pel l antw ei gh ou t4. 6 gr am s ofm et ham phe t am i ne and pl ac e i ton t he desk i n herb edr oom . A ppel l ant ’ s son poi nt ed out t o t he ar r est i ng off i cer s an a d d it io n a l 0 .4 g r a m so fm e t h a m p h e t a m in e in a p p e lla n t ’s b e d r o o m . W e h o ld t hatt he evi den cew asl ega l l y a nd f ac t ual l y s uf f i ci entt o s how t hatap pel l ant pos se ss ed f ourorm or e g r am s. Poi nt s f i ve and s i x a r e o ver r ul ed. I n herf i f t eent h poi nt , appel l antcl ai m s t hat t her e i s no evi dence l i nki ng her t o t he M ar ch dr ug t r ans ac t i on. A ppe l l ant , how eve r , i gnor es her conf es si on, adm i t t ed asSt at e’ s Exhi bi t16, i n w hi ch sh e s t at ed:15 ... S e eHei del b erg , 1 4 4S .W .3 d a t 5 3 7 ; Bel l v. S tate , 938 S. W . 2d 35, 5 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), cert. denied, 5 2 2 U .S . 8 2 7 (1 9 9 7 ); Greenwood v. S tate , 9 4 8 S .W .2 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9

– 5 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.); 12 Jac ki e [ P att erson] goti n m y c aran d w e l eftt o go and ge tt he m et ham phetam i ne f or[ t he C I ] . I w entoverto A ngi e Lam b’ s t r ai l er t hati s l oca t ed . . . i n Fl ow erM ound, Texa s t o s eei fs he had t he qua rt erounc e o fm et ham phe t am i ne. W hen I gott o Angi e’ s sh e had abo ut ( 1) ounc e o fm et ham phe t am i ne, an d s he f r ont ed m e t he 1/4 ounc e o fm et ham phe t am i ne f orJa ck i e. Angi e w asex pec t i ng m e t o b r i n g h e r b a c k $2 75 . 00 a s p a y m e n t f o rt he m et ham phetam i ne.

. . . I put a l i t t l e m et ham phe t am i ne i n aba g f orm e, an d i n a s ec ond bag f orJack i e. I dr oveJack i e bac k t o t he 7- 11 t o m ee tw i t h [ t he C I ] . D ur i ng t he r i de back t o t he 7- 11 [ , ] I gave Jacki e t he 1 /4 o unce o f m e th a m p h e ta m i n e to g i v e to th e [C I]. W e h o l d th a t th e e v i d e n c e i sb o th l e g a l l ya n d fa c tu a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt app el l ant ’ s con vi ct i on f ort he M ar ch dr ug s al e. Poi ntf i ft ee n i s ove r r ul ed. V I . Appel l ant ’ s W r itt en St at em ent I n her ei ght h and ni nt h poi nt s, app el l ant cl ai m s t hat her w r i t t en st at em ent a dm i t t e d a sSt a t e ’ sE xh i bi t16 w a si nv ol un t a ry a nd v i ol a t e d a rt i c l e 38. 22 because w ar ni ngs r el at ed t o an i ndi gent accused’ s r i ghtsto app oi nt ed coun sel do no tappearon i t s f ace as r equi r ed by t he c o de ofcr i m i nal pr ocedu r e. A p p e lla n t ’s o bje c t io n a tt r ia l, h o w e v e r , w a s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t v io la t e d a rt ic le 38. 22 beca us e i tw asan or als t at em ent . B ec aus e herpoi nt s on a ppe aldo n ot com portw i t h t he obj ec t i on r ai se d a tt r i al , w e o ver r ul e a ppe l l ant ’ s ei ght h a nd ni nt h poi nt s. 15Bri

dges v. State , N o. 02- 07- 000 69- C R, 2008 W L 405295 9, at*1 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h Aug. 29, 2008 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ).

16 ... S e eO ursb o urnev. S tate , 259 S . W . 3d 159, 176 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 8 ).

17 ... Str i ckl and v. W

ashi ngton , 466 U. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct . 2052 , 2 0 6 4(1 9 8 4 ); Sa l

i n a s v. S tate , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Ma l le tt v. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). 13 I n he rt ent h poi nt , ap pel l antcl ai m s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by n ot i ns t r uct i ng t he j ury t o di sr ega r d he rw r i t t en st at em enti fi tf ound t hatap pel l ant h a d n o tb e e n g iv e n t h e w a r n in g sre q u ir e d b yc o d e o fc r im in a l p r o c e d u r e a rt ic le 38 . 22 , sect i on 2 . A ppel l ant conced es, how ever , t hatshe di d not r equestsuch an i ns t r uct i on a nd t hatt he t r i alco urtha s no du t y t o gi ve an i ns t r uct i on s ua sp ont e. W e h ol d, t her ef or e, t hatt he i ss ue w as no tpr es erved , an d c o n s e q u e n tl y , th e t ri a l c o u rt w a sn o t re q u i re d t o in s tru c t th e ju ryto d i s re g a rd th e sta tem e n t. 16W e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s te n th p o i n t. V I I . Eff ect i veness ofC oun sel I n hersevent h and el event h poi nt s, appel l antal l eges t hathert r i al counsel p r o v id e d in e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e o fc o u n s e l. W e appl y a t w o- pr ong ed t estt o i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel cl ai m s. 17 Fi r st , appe l l antm ustshow t hatcounsel ’ s per f or m ance w as def i ci ent , w hi ch r equ i r ess how i ng t hatco uns elm ades uch s er i ouser r or s t hathew asnot18 ... Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t687, 104 S. Ct . a t2064 . 19 ... Id. a t688– 89, 104 S. Ct . a t2065 . 20 ... Bo ne v. State, 7 7 S .W .3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 3 & n .1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Thomps on, 9 S. W . 3d a t813– 14.

21 ... Str i ckl and , 466 U. S. a t689, 104 S. Ct . a t2065 . 22 ... Id. a t687, 104 S. Ct . a t2064 . 23 ... Id . a t694, 104 S. Ct . a t2068 . 14 fu n c ti o n i n g as the “c o u n se l ” g u a ran tee d b ythe S i x th A m e n d m e n t. 18C o u n s e l ’s perf or m an ce i s def i ci entonl y i fi tf el l be l ow an obj ec t i ve st and ar d of r easonabl eness m easur ed by pr evai l i ng pr of essi onal nor m s. 19The r ecor d m ust be suf f i ci ent l y devel oped t o over c om e a st r ong pr esum pt i on t hatcounsel pr ovi ded r easonabl e assi st ance. 20O urscr ut i ny ofcounsel ’ s per f or m ance m ust be hi ghl y de f er ent i al , m ak i ng e very e f f ortt o e l i m i nat e t he di st ort i ng e f f ec t s of h i n d sigh t. 21 S econ d , a ppel l antm ustshow t hatcounsel ’ s def i ci entper f or m ance pr ej udi ced t he def ense; t hi s req u i r es show i ng t hatcounsel ’ s er r or s w er e so s e r io u s a s t o d e p r iv e t h e d e f e n d a n to fa f a irt r ia l. 22A ppel l antm ustshow t hat t her e i s a r ea so nab l e pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul tof th e tr i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. 23 I n a headi ng i denti f yi ng hersevent h poi nt , appel l antal l eg e s t hatt r i al cou ns el w asi nef f ec t i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obj ec tt o Fo ut ’ s t es t i m ony t hatt es t i ng on24 ... S eeT ex . R . A pp . P. 38 .1 (i ); To ngv. S tate , 25 S . W . 3d 707, 710

(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), cert. denied, 5 3 2 U .S . 1 0 5 3 (2 0 0 1 ); Grotti v. S tate , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d 7 4 7 , 7 7 8 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 ), a ff’d, 273 S. W . 3d 273 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ).

25 ... S e eMa rti

n ez v. S tate , 2 2 S .W .3 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 26 ... See Str

i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t687.

15 t he su bs t anc e se i z ed i n Jul y sh ow ed i t t o be m et ham phe t am i ne. A partf r om t he h e a d i ng, appel l ant ’ s br i ef i ng dev ot es not hi ng m or e t o t he i ssue. A cc or di ngl y, he rpoi nti s i nad equ at el y br i ef ed. 24 M or eov er , ev en had ap pel l antobj ec t ed t o Fo ut ’ s t esti m ony t hatt he s u b s t a n c e w a sm e t h a m p h e t a m in e , h e ro bje c t io n w o u ld h a v e b e e n p r o p e r ly o v e r r u le d u n d e rw h a ta p p e ll a n tc o n c e d e sist h e c u r r e n ts t a t e o ft h e la w in Texa s; t hati s, t hatoneexpertm ay t es t i f y as t o hi s orheropi ni on ba se d upo n th e fi n d i n g s o f an o th e r ex p e rt . 25Bec aus e t he t r i alco urtpr ope r l y w oul d ha ve ove r r ul ed t he obj ec t i on appe l l antf aul t s herco uns elf ornotr ai si ng, s he ca nnot sh o w tha t c o u n se l ’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s c o n sti tu ti o n a l l yd e fi c i e n t. 26W e o v e r r u le a p p e l l a n t’ s s e v e n th p o i n t. I n her el event h poi nt , appel l ant ur ges t hat her t r i al coun se l ren d er ed i nef fecti ve assi st ance by f ai l i ng t o pr eserve poi nt s ei ght and ni ne, di scussed abo ve, an d byf ai l i ng t o r equ es ta j ury i ns t r uct i on on t he vol un t ar i nes s of St at e’ s Exhi bi t16 asur ged i n poi ntt en.27 ... Thomps on, 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 4 ; Jackson v. State, 9 7 3 S . W . 2 d 9 54,

9 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ).

28 ... S ee Jackson v. State, 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). 29 ... Thomps on, 9 S. W . 3d a t813. 30 ... Bo ne, 77 S . W . 3d a t833. 31 ... Patter

son v. State, 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 9 4 , 3 0 6 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.). 16 A cl ai m ofi nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco uns elm us tbe f i r m l y gr ounde d i n, and s upport ed by, t he r ec or d. 27W hen t he r ecor d i s si l entas t o possi bl e t r i al st r at egi esem pl oye d byde f ens e c ouns el , w e w i l l nots pec ul at e o n t he r ea so ns f ort hose st r at egi es. 28 Th er e i s a s ubst ant i al r i sk off ai l ur e w hen a cl ai m o fi nef f ect i ve assi st ance o fc o u n s e l isb r o u g h to n d ir e c ta p p e a l. 29“ U nde rnor m alc i r cu m st anc es , t he re c o rd o n d i re c t a p p e a l w i l l n o t b e s u fficie n tt o s h o w th a t c o u n s e l ’s r e p r e s e n t a t io n w a s s o d e f ic ie n ta n d s o la c k in g in t a c t ic a l o rs t r a t e g ic deci si onm aki ng a s to o ver com e t he pr esum pt i on t hatcounsel ’ s conduct w as re a s o n a b l e a n d p ro fe s s i o n a l .” 30 Thi s ca se dem ons t r at est he “i nad equ ac i esi nhe r enti n e val uat i ng i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m so n d i re c t a p p e a l .” 31 A ppe l l antdi d notf i l e a m ot i on fo r n e w tri a l t o a ffo rd t h e t ri a l c o u rt a n o p p o rtu n i tyt o h o l d a h e a ri n g a n d i n q u i re i nt o t he r ea so nsf ort r i alco uns el ’ s ac t s orom i ss i ons . Conse que nt l y, w e c ann ot det er m i ne w he t herco uns el ’ s ac t i onsw er e g r ounde d i n s ound t r i als t r at egy32 ... See Jacks on, 8 7 7 S .W .2 d a t 7 7 1 ; Patter son , 46 S . W . 3d a t306. 33 ... S e eA n drews v. S tate , 1 5 9 S .W .3 d 9 8 , 1 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t813. 17 be ca us e t he r ec or d i s si l entast o pos si bl e t r i als t r at egi es , an d w e w i l l not sp e cul at e on t he r easons f ort hose st r at egi es. 32Nori s t hi s a c as e w her e t he t r i al r ecor d al one i s suf f i ci entt o supp o rtappel l ant ’ s cl ai m t hatcounsel w as i nef f ect i ve. 33Ther ef or e, ap pel l antha s f ai l ed t o m ee tt he f i r stpr ong o f Str i ckl and. W e o v e rr u l e ap p e l l a n t’ s e l e v e n th p o i n t.

V I I I . I nf or m ant s and A ccom pl i ces I n hert w el f t h and t hi rt eent h poi nt s, ap pel l antcl ai m s t he t r i al courtabused i t s di sc r et i on bynoti ns t r uct i ng t he j ury on ac com pl i cean d i nf or m antt es t i m ony, r e s p e c t iv e ly . N o a c c o m p lic e o rin f o r m a n tt e s t i f ie d a ta p p e lla n t ’s t r ia l. Ther ef or e, poi nt s t w el ve and t hi rt ee n a r e o ver r ul ed.

I X . Rec or ded Tel eph oneConversa t i on I n h e r f o u rt e e n th p o i n t, a p p e l l a n t cl a i m s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts di sc r et i on byad m i t t i ng St at e’sExh i bi t1, a r ec or di ng ofa t el eph one convers at i on betw een t he C I an d Jacki e P at t er son because t he r ecor di ng w as h e a r s a y . O n t h e r e c o r d in g , t h e C I a n d P a t t e r s o n c a n b e h e a r d d is c u s s in g t h e ir pl ansf ort he C I t o pi ckup Pa t t er so n a nd t ak e h i m t o a pp el l an t ’ s pl ac e o f e m p l o y m e n t.34 ... T e x . R . E v i d . 8 0 1 (e )(2 )(E ). 35 ... T e x . R . E v i d . 8 0 3 (3 ). 18 A s t a t e m e n tb ya c o -c o n s p ir a t o ro fa p a rt yd u r in g t h e c o u r s e a n d in f urt her anc e o ft he con sp i r ac y t hati s of f er ed aga i ns ta pa rt y i s nothe ar sa y. 34 The r ec or d s how s t hatPatt er so n a nd a ppe l l antha d a gr ee d t o a dr ug t r ans ac t i on and t hatappel l antdel i ver ed t o Patt er son a quart erounce of m et ham phetam i ne. P a tterso n , th e refo re, w a s a pa rt y to th e o ffen se . H i s o u t- o f- c o u rtsta tem e n ts m ade i n f urt her ance ofthe con spi r acy t o com m i tthe off ense w er e, t her ef or e, nothe ar sa y. A s t o t h e CI ’ s s t a t e m e n t s a d m i t t e d i n St a t e ’ s E x h i b i t 1, o u rr evi ew of S tate ’s E x h i b i t 1 rev e a l s th a t it re c o rde d the C I d i sc u ss i n g h e r pl a n s w i th Patt er so n t o pi ck h i m u p an d dr op hi m of fi n L ew i sv i l l e. Undert he r ul esof evi den ce , a st at em ent of a dec l ar ant ’ s t hen ex i st i ng pl an i s an exc ept i on t o t he hear sayr ul e. 35W e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on by o v e r r u lin g a p p e lla n t ’s o bje c t io n st o S t a t e ’s E x h ib it1 . P o in tf o u rt e e n is ove r r ul ed.19 X . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d allo f ap p e l l a n t’ s p o i n ts, w e affi rm the j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 30, 2009