A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 9
- 5 1 2
- CR. 1 

### NUM BER 13-09- 0051 1-CR

NUM BER 13-09- 0051 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
FR A NC ISCO T REV INO, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 10 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Franci sc o Tre v ino , app eal s from hi s conv ic ti ons ar is ing out of his al leg ed
sex ual abus e of V.N ., a c hil d

. I n tr ial co urt c ause number 06- CR -3 851- D, Trev ino w as 1A p p e l l a t e c a u s e n u m b e r 1 3
- 0 9
- 5 1 1
- CR. 2 As t hi s i s a m em or andum opi ni on and t he par t i es ar e f am i l i ar w i t h t he f act s oft he case, we wi l l not 3 r eci t e t hem her e except as necessar y t o adv i se t he par t i es oft hi s C our t ' s deci si on and t he basi c re asons f or i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 2 conv ic ted o f six

co unts of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 021 ( Ver non Supp. 2009)

. The ju ry as ses sed puni shmentat ten y ears’ co nfinement in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce— Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion on e ach count , and the tr ial co urt ordered those sent ences to ru n consec uti v ely

. In tri al cour t c ause number

07- CR -0 775 -D, T rev ino w as conv ic ted o f tw o c ounts of ind ecency w it h a c hil d. See i

d. § 2 21.11 (V er non Supp. 2009)

. The ju ry as ses sed puni shmentat ten y ears’ co nfinement on each count , and the tr ial cour t als o ordered th ese sent ences to ru n c onsec uti v ely

. Trev ino f iled a m otion for n ew trial in bot h cases arguing i nef fective assistance of

coun sel, w hich the trial court den ied ata hea ring on the m otion . Trevino has ap pea led bo th case s to this Cou rt

. W e co n s id e r t h e s e co m p a n io n a p p e a ls t o ge t h e r. By t h re e is s u e s , wh ic h we h a ve renu mb ered , Tre v ino argues th at: (1) the trial court erred byden y ing his motion for a directe d v erdict on the ch arges o f in dece ncy w ith a child (trial cou rt cause n um ber 07 -CR077 5-D); (2) the statu te allowing cumu lative senten ces is uncon stitutio nal (bot h cau ses);
an d ( 3) h e r ec ei v ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el ( bo th c au s es )

. W e affi r m. 3 I. D I RE CT E D V E RDI CT By his firs t iss ue, Trev ino arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

deny ing hi s mot ion for a di re cte d v erdict on the charg es for i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d. Spec ific all y , Trev ino arg ues that the i ndi ctmental leg ed th at he touc hed V. N. ’s geni tal s, w hil e the ev ide nce shows t hat he di d not

. W e di sag re e.3

A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e tre a t a c h a lle n ge to t h e d e n ia l o f a m o ti o n fo r a d ire ct e d verd ictas a ch a lle n ge to t he l eg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce. See Wil li am s v . St ate , 9 3 7 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 9 , 4 8 2 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1996)

. To ass ess w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt ing a v erdict i s l eg all y su ff ic ien t,
w e c onsi der

al l the e v ide nce in the record i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the j ur y v erdict and deter mine w hether a ra ti onal jur y coul d hav e found the d efendant g uil ty of all the ele ments of the c ri me bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Hooper v. St ate , 21 4 S. W .3 d 9, 1 3 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 18- 19 ( 1979) ); Swear ing en v . St ate , 101 S. W .3d 8 9, 95 ( Tex . C ri m. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). W e meas ure the l eg al suffici ency of the
ev ide nce by the ele ments of t he offense as defined by a hy pothet ic all y co rrectj ur

y ch arg e. Gr otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3d 2 73, 2 80- 81 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. The hy pothet ic all y

co rrectjur

y charg e in this case w oul d hav e req uired the j ur y to f ind th at: (1) on or abo ut D ecem ber 12, 200 6 (Count 1) or Decem ber 15, 200 6 (Count2); (2 ) Trev ino i ntent ion all y or kn ow ing ly ; (3) engag ed in s ex ual co ntac t w it h V. N. by touc hin g her g eni tal s; (4 ) w it h the i ntent to arouse or g ra ti fy his se x ual des ire; an d ( 5) V.N . w as then a chil d y oung er

than se v enteen y ears o ld and notTrev ino ’s sp ouse. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 21.11( a) (1 ), ( c) (1 ); see al so Tov ar v. Sta te, N o . 1 3
- 0 8
- 0 0 5 9 2
- C R , 2 0 1 0 WL 2783873, at *8 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ly 15, 2010, no pet . h. ) (mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. B. A nal ysis T re vin o p o in t s t o t e s t im ony f ro m V

. N. o n d ir e c te xa m in a t io n , wh ic h h e a s s e rt s sh o ws tha t he did not to uch h er genitals: [The State]: W as there a t ime that he to uched othe r par ts of4 y our body w hen he w as staying w it h y ou w hen he w asn’ t s uppos ed to be t here? [V.N .]: No. [T he Sta te]: So he put his han d in y our pan ts and he only did that one t ime? [V.N.] : Yes. [ Th e S t a t e ] : W as ther e a t i me t h a ty o u h a d t o s l e e p i n t he be d w i th h i m? [V.N.] : Yes. [The St ate]: W ho w as in the b ed? [V .N .] : M y mo m. [The St ate]: And w ho el se? [V .N .] : An d me a nd h i m. [T h e St a te ]: An d ho w wou ld y’all [s ic] be sle e p in g? [V.N .]: My mom w oul d be in the mid d le

. H e w oul d be on th is si de and I w oul d be on th e oth er si de. [T he Sta te]: And did he ever try to tou ch y ou w hen he w as in bed w it h y ’al l [si c]? [V.N.] : No. W ell—

. . . . No. Like [sic], in the mo rning, my mo m wo uld hav e to g o to w or k and I w oul d be—I w il l sti ll be lay ing there and he w oul d j ustmov e ove r and then— and t hen puthi s p rivate i n my butt and—o r in mymid dle

. [The St ate]: And t his w as after y ou g uy s w ent t o M ex ic o? [V.N.] : Uh-huh , y es.5

[The Stat e]: So he w oul d act ual ly do th o se ot h e r thing s to y ou ag ain ? [V.N.] : Yes. [The Stat e]: Di d he ev er touc h any par t of y ou w it h his hand? [V.N .]: W ell , only the—to put his fing er , onl y i n my butt

. That’s i t. [ Th e S t a t e ] : Oka y . And h e w o u l d o n l y t o u c h y o u r

b u t t w i th his hand, thou g h? [V.N.] : Yes. [The St ate]: Oka y . He nev er touched any other par

t of y our body w it h hi s h and? [V.N .]: No. On cross-examina tion, V.N. f urthe r testif ied as follows: [D efense C ounse l] : Oka y . Y ou s aid that—th at i n the apar tment after y ’al l [si c] g ot backf ro m M ex ic o—t hat w as w hen y ’al l [sic] w ere sup pose d to sho w up in cou rt here, bu t y ’al l [si c] w ent t o M e x ic o. Do y ou re member that? [V.N.] : Yes. [D efense C ounse l] : That he—touc hed y ou on the b utt? [V.N.] : Yes. [D efense Cou nsel ]: And that’ s the onl y pla ce he touc hed y ou, is that ri g ht? [V.N .]: And i n my —um, y eah. [D efense C ounse l] : Jus t i n the butt , j uston t he out si de of the butt? [V.N .]: W ell , i n. Lik e, [ si c] he w oul d g o—he w oul d put his han d in—in m y

pan ts and in my und erw ear. [D efense C ounse l] : Oka y . But the onl y pla ce he touc hed y ou w as on6 the b utt? [V.N .]: W as on my butt

. [D efense C ounse l] : Oka y . And y ou’ re su re aboutthat ? [V.N.] : Yes. W hil e i t i s n ot en ti re ly

cl ear from hi s bri ef, itappears that Tre v ino arg ues that he c an only be convicted of

indece ncy w ith a child by contactif he t ouch ed V.N.’s genitals w ith his hand, and t his tes ti mony i ndi cat e s th a t Trev ino onl y touc hed V. N. ’s “ butt” w it h hi s h and. The Stat e arg ues, and w e ag re e, t hat s ex ual co ntac t i ncl udes touchin g thati s d one w it h a par t of the off e n d e r’ s b ody othe r than his hand. Se x ual co ntac t i s d efined as “ any touc hin g of any

par t of the body

of a c hil d, i ncl udi ng touc hin g throug h c lot hin g , w it h the
an us , brea s t, or an y pa rt of th e g en i ta l s of a perso n.” See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 21.11( c) (2 ). The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has defined “t ouch” as “ to pu t t he hand , fing er , or

othe r par

t of the body

on, s o a s to f e el; to percei v e by the sens e of feeli ng .” Res nick v

. St ate , 574 S.W .2d 5 58, 5 59 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1978)

. V.N . t est ified thatTrev ino “p ut hi s pri v ate in mybuttand— or i n my mid dle .” W e hol d tha t t his tes ti mony i s s uff ic ien t to allow a ration al jury

to f ind tha t T rev ino tou ched V .N.’s gen itals w ith his pen is, which is “s ex ual cont act ” as defined b y the ind ecency

st atute

. See T

re vi no v . St ate , 783 S.W .2d 731 , 735 (Te x . App .–S an Anton io 198 9, no pet. ) ( hold ing that de fend ant“touche d” v ictim’s
anus by eng ag ing i n anal i ntercourse)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Trev ino ’s first is sue. II. C U M U LA TI VE S ENT ENC ES By his secon d issue, Trevino argues tha t the trial court’s judgmen t, cum ulatin g his sent ences , is uncon sti tuti onal becau se the c umulat iv e s entenc e ex ceeds the puni shment aut horized by the jury

on the in divi dua l co unt s. S pecif ically , T rev ino argues th at th e jury7

assesse d ten y ears’ imp risonm entfor each of the eight cou nts; th erefore, th e jury must hav e i ntended for Trev ino to ser v e onl y ten y ears in pr is on. The ju dg ment c umulat ing the
s e n t e n c e s , a s a ll o we d b y s e c t io n 3

. 0 3 o f t h e T e xa s P e n a l Co d e , r e qu ir e s T re vin o t o se rve eig hty ye ars in pri son. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3.03 (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. Trev ino
arg ues that cumul ati ng se ntenc es in thi s mann er v iol ates hi s r ig ht t o a jur y tr ial and to du e proces s. See U .S. C ON ST
. amends. V, VI, X IV. The S ta te p oi nt s o utt ha t th e Tex as C ou rt of C r i mi na l A pp ea l s h as e x pressly
re jected t hese preci se cons ti tuti onal chall eng es to the sentenc ing cu mulat ion st atute , and
w e are bound to follo w i ts deci si on. Bar

ro w v. State , 20 7 S. W .3 d 377, 379 (Te x . C r i m. App. 2006) ( hol din g thatthe cumul ati on of sen tenc es under se cti on 3. 03 does not v iol ate the S ixth Amendment ri g ht to a jur y tr ial or due proces s)

. Trev ino nei ther ac know led g es nor att em pts to distinguish the controlling auth ority , w hich is directlycontrary to his
arg ument. W e ov er ru le Trev ino ’s se cond is sue. III . I N EFFEC TI VE A SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL By his third issue, Trevino argues tha t he rece iv ed ine f fective assistance of

coun sel. Trev ino poi nts to the fol low ing al leg ed fail ures by his tr ial co unsel to suppo rthi s c lai m: ( 1)
coun sel failed to inv estigate p ote ntial w itnesse s; (2) counse l fa iled to hire an ex pert wi tne ss to t est ify thatthe lac k of an y phy si cal trauma to V.N . w as si g nific ant; (3 ) couns el faile d to
s t ri k e a ju ro r wh o p re vio u s ly wo rk e d fo r t h e T e xa s De p a rt m e n to f Fa m il y a n d P ro t e c t ive Se r v i c es ; ( 4) c ou ns el f ai l ed to ob j ec t w he n th e St at e’ s ex pe rts tes ti fi ed tha t V. N .’ s c l ai ms
w ere tr uthful; ( 5) co unsel fail ed to obj ectto improper j ur y arg ument i n bot h the guilt/innoce nce a nd p unish me nt pha ses of trial; (6) coun sel failed to objectto the State ’s infla mmator

y arg uments to the t ri al cour t reg ardin g T re v ino ’s nati onal ity and cumul ati ng the8

sent ence s; and (7) counsel imp rope rly injected Trevino’s natio nality i nto the trial. W e w ill address eac h arg ument i n tur n. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W e appl y

the tw o- prong ed Str

ickl and ana ly sis to dete rmi n e wh e t her cou nsel’s
re p re s e n t a t io n wa s s o d e f ic ie n t t h a t it vio la t e d a d e fe n d a n t ’s co n s t it u t io n a l r ig h tt o e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel

. Goods peed v . St ate , 187 S.W .3d 390 , 392 (T ex. C rim. App . 200 5); Ja ynes v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p et.) ; see Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 4 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. A n a p p e l l a n t c l a i mi ng a Str ickl and vio la t io n m u s te s t a b li s h t h a t“( 1 ) h is a t t o rn e y’s re p re s e n t a t io n fe ll b e lo w a n o bje c t ive stan dard of

r e a s o n a b le ness, and (2) there is a reason able proba bility that , butfor his atto rney’s errors, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing w ould have been dif feren t.” Jay

nes , 216 S. W .3 d at 851; see Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7. W e afford g re at de ferenc e to tr ial
coun sel’s ability—“an ap pell a n tm u s t overcome the stron g presu mp tion th at cou nsel’s cond uct fell w ithin th e w ide range of reason able profession al assi s t a n c e.” Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851. The appel lan t must prov e both e le m e n ts of the Str ickl and t e s tb y a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Mu noz v. Sta te , 24 S.W .3d 427, 434 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no p et.)

. Ty pic all y , a si len t record tha t prov ide s n o ex pla nati on for couns el’ s act ion s w il l not
ov er come the strong presumpt ion of effect iv e as si sta nce. Ry lan der v. St ate , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110- 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. In t his ca se, how ev er , Trev ino fil ed a motio n for new tr ial , and the tr ial cour

t hel d a hear ing on his i neffect iv e as si sta nce cl aims

. W e rev iew the tr ial court ’s rul ing on a motion for new tr ial for a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Cha rles v. State , 146 S.W .3d 204, 20 8 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ; My T hi Ti eu v . St ate, 2 9 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 6 , 2 2 3 (T e x.9

App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2009, pet. ref’d)

. W e afford al most to ta l d eferenc e to a tr ial court’s det ermin ation o f t he historical facts and o f m ix ed quest ions of

law and fact th at tu rn on an ev alu ati on of the cred ib ili ty and demeanor

of the w it ness es. Kober v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 230 , 233 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). W here the trial court h a s n ot m ade ex plicit findi ng s o f fact , as i n thi s c ase, w e w il l impl y al l findi ng s n eces sar

y to suppo rtthe ru li ng “w hen s uch impl ic itfactual findi ng s a re both reas o n a b le and s uppor ted i n the record.” Johns on v

. St ate , 169 S.W .3d 223 , 239 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). B. Rea son abl e In v est ig at io n of Wit ness es T rev ino arg ues that becau se the re w as no med ical ev iden ce in this case , the entire case reste d on the credibility of T rev ino and V.N. T rev ino cl aim s tha t he sugg este d to his trial co unse l th at f riends an d fam ily mem bers cou ld testif

y as to V.N.’s ten den cy

to tell lies, the l iv ing ar ra ng ements of the p arti es, hi s lac k of oppor tuni ty to commi t the offense, and his g eneral charact er

and behav ior around chi ldren and V.N

. Spec ific all y , Trev ino arg ues that the fol low ing w it ness es coul d hav e prov ide d rele v ant t est imony but w ere notca ll ed:

• B.G. , w ho was V.N.’s m oth er, Veron ica Garza, and Claud ia Tre v ino w ere available and w il li ng to tes ti fy about Trev ino ’s ch aract e r, thatTrev ino di d nothav e the oppor tuni ty to commi t t he c ri mes, that V.N . i s mani pul ati v e, and that V.N .’ s father did not li ke Trev ino ;

• Ma ri a Gomezw as av ail abl e and w il li ng to tes ti fy that Trev ino l ack ed th e oppor tuni ty to com mit th e crimes an d to his cha racter;

• V.N.’s broth er could h ave te stif ied regarding V.N.’s credibility , Tre v ino’s cha racter, and V.N.’s fath er’s inf luen ce on her. Trev ino arg ues that thes e w it ness es w oul d hav e al low ed th e j ur y to see that Trev ino w as a dev oted father, a ha rd w or ker , and a g ood c andi date for probati on. At t he hear ing on t he moti on for new tr ial , Trev ino ’s tr ial att or ney te st if ie d thathe10

hired an inv est ig ator , w ho inter v iew ed all of

the w it ness es Trev ino su g g est ed and re lay ed the s ubst ance of w hat t hose w it ness es w oul d s ay at tr ial bac k t o hi m. Trev ino ’s att or ney tes ti fied th at, after speak ing to them at len g th about thei r poss ibl e tes ti mony , he dec ide d not to cal l the w it ness es Trev ino propose d becau se “t hey w oul d not hel p us in the cas e, espe cially

[B.G.] w ould not he lp us.” H e e x plaine d tha t non e of the wi tne sses cou ld prov ide rele v ant t est imony as to V.N .’ s c re dib il ity , and tes ti mony aboutthe influ ence of V.N.’s fath er “w asn’t whatit was repo rted to be.” Altho ugh he con cede d tha t the se
w it ness es mayhav e been abl e to prov ide chara cte r ev ide nce fav orabl e to Trev ino , non e coul d prov ide damag ing ch aract er ev ide nce ag ain st V.N ., w hic h h e b e liev ed w as the
re le va n tis s u e . F u rt h e rm o re , T re vin o ’s a t t o rn e y t e s t if ie d t h a t t h e wit n e s s e s we re “wi s h yw ashyab o u tw h e r e t h e y w e r e ” a n d “ w h e t h e r

t h e y w e re p re s e n ta tt h e t i me t h a tt he offenses were c o mmitt ed,” and therefore, he bel iev ed th ey co uld not prov ide si g nific ant tes ti mony

aboutTrev ino ’s oppor tuni ty to commi t t he c ri mes. An at torne y ’s strategic decision to n ot call a w itness wi ll be rev iew ed o nly if there
w as no plausib le basis for not ca lling the w itness, a nd the f ailure to call w itnesse s w hose tes ti mony

i s of marg ina l benefit does not amount to ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el w hen the t otal ity

of couns el’ s represent ati on w as acc eptable. See V ela squez v. Sta te , 941 S.W .2d 303, 310 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, p e t. ref ’d) ; Or donez v. Sta te , 806 S.W .2d 895 , 900 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 1, pe t. ref ’d). In this case , the trial court
w as p re s ent ed wi th a pla usible b asis for trial counse l’s ref usal to presen t the se
w itnesse s—nam ely, tha t the ir testimo ny w as no t w hatit w as represe nte d to be a nd would not b e hel pful. The tr ial co urt’ s i mpli ed det er minat ion thata pl ausi ble t rial s trateg y w as11

impl emented is suppor ted byT re v ino ’s attor ney ’s testi mony and enti re ly

reason abl e, an d
acc ordin g ly , w as not a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Johns on , 169 S.W .3d a t 239

. C. Failure to Retain Expe rts T rev ino argues tha t his coun sel w as inef fective in fa iling to reta in an expert w itness “to explore t h e s ig nif icance of the lack of

any phy sical traum a” to V.N. Sexual Assault Nurs e E x a mi n e r

E l i z a b e t h A n d l e ma n t e s t i fi e d t h a tt h e re w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f p h y s i c al trauma to V.N ., but s he furt her tes ti fied th at s uch ev ide nce w il l not alw ay s b e presentev en if abus e has oc cur re d. Trev ino tes ti fied atthe moti on for new tr ial hear ing thathe h ad ask ed his a tt o rn e y

abouthi ri ng an e x per t t o refute the nurse’ s t est imony

. The Stat e arg ues, among other

thing s, that

to compl ain of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce by fail ing to cal l an ex per t w it ness , t he defendant must firs t s how th a t th e e x per

t w oul d hav e tes ti fied i n a manner benefic ial t o hi m. See C ate v . St ate , 124 S.W .3d 922 , 927 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2004, pet. re f’d) ; Tei

xei ra v. State , 89 S.W .3d 190, 194 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2002, pet.
re f’d)

. W e ag re e. Trev ino does not poi nt to anyev ide nce in the record demons trati ng that
an e x pert wi tne ss a ctua lly would have testif ied on his beh alf a nd tha t the testim ony w ould hav e been benefic ial

. Acc ordin g ly , w e reje ct thi s a rg ument. D. Ob

j ect io n to Ven irem emb er Trev ino next arg ues that dur ing v oir di re , his attor ney

lear ned that a v eni re member had prev iou sl y

been employ ed by

Chil d Prote cti v e Serv ic es as an inv est ig ator i n the se x ual abuse uni t. T re v ino arg ues that he informed his attor ney that he did not w ant t hat p erson on th e jury , and both agreed to use a perem pto ry strike. Trevino’s attorne y , howe ver, faile d to str ik e her , and sh e ul ti matel y bec ame the foreperson of the j ur y . At t he hear ing12

on th e moti on for new

tr ial , Trev ino ’s att or ney co ncede d tha t he “ful ly i ntended to str ik e tha t juror and indi cat ed so on [hi s] seat ing chart , and i t w as so full of red mark s t here tha t w hen it came time to make strikes[,] I just overlooked her. Th at w as a m istake o n my part.” He
c o n c e d e d t h a th is fa il u re t o st ri k e t h e ju ro r wa s n o tt ri a l s t ra t e gy. The Stat e c ounters that, among other thi ng s, Trev ino has fail ed to prov e preju dic e. W e agree. T rev ino do es no t explain how a pe rson’s previous em ploymen t for child protec ti v e s er

v ic es w oul d affecthi s o r her j udg ment on his g uil t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) . W hil e it is possi ble that a former chil d protecti v e s er

v ic es w or ker

w oul d be bia sed ag ain st an a person acc used of cr imes agai nstchil dren, t hat i s n ot ne ces sar il y the cas e. As the S tate poi nts out, the v eni re member tes ti fied th at he r pr ior empl o yme n t w oul d not affecther ser

v ic e as a juror , and t hat s he c oul d putas ide al l she had l ear ned and dec ide the p re sentca se sol ely on t he ev ide nce present ed. See Lopez v. Sta te , 79 S.W .3d 1 08, 113 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 200 2 , no pe t.) (presum ing that jurors follow the trial court’s ins tr uct ion s a nd onl y

co nsi der

the evide nce in the c ase)

. On t his record, w e hol d tha t Trev ino has f ail ed to show that his couns el’ s fail ure to st ri ke the v eni re member cons ti tuted inef fective assistance of

coun sel. E. Fai lu re t o Ob

j ectt o Test imo ny

R egar di ng V.N .’s Tr ut hf ul ness Trev ino arg ues that his couns el w as ine ff ect iv e by faili ng to ob ject t o tes ti mony

from tw o w itnesse s, a nurse and a foren sic interv iew er, w ho h e claims o f fered opinio ns tha t V.N.
w as tel li ng the tr uth. The St ate a rg ues that the test imony on w hic h T re v ino rel ies does not const itute an op inion o n V.N.’s credibility; thus, ha d his atto rney objected , the trial court
w oul d nothav e abus ed i ts dis creti on in ov er ru li ng the obj ect ion

. Ag ain , w e agree w it h the13

Stat e. In order

to show i neffect iv e as si sta nce o f c o u nsel for t he fail ure to obj ectto the admis si on of ev ide nce, the defendant must show that , had the obj ect ion been lod g ed, t he tr ial co urt w oul d hav e er re d by ov er ru li ng i t. See E

x p ar te White, 1 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 , 5 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004)

. Ex per t tes ti mony

thata c hil d ex hib it s s y mptoms cons is tent w it h s ex ual abuse does not cons ti tute an opi nio n on the c hil d's tr uthfulnes s. See Schu tz v. Sta te , 957 S.W .2d 5 2, 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; Hitt v. State , 53 S. W .3d 697 , 707 (Tex. App. –Au stin 200 1, pe t. ref ’d); se e al so Rus hin g v

. St ate, No. 09- 08- 00396- CR , 2010 W L 21716 28, a t *5 (Te x . App .–B eau mo nt May2 6, 201 0, no pet .) (m em . op. , notd esignate d for pub lication). Trev ino first arg ues that the follow ing testi mony from N urse Andl eman c onst it uted an opi nio n on V.N .’ s c re dib il ity . The tes ti mony oc cur re d i n the cont ext of ex pla ini ng that there w as no phy si cal ev ide nce of a sex ual as saul t on V.N .: [ T h e S t a t e ] : W h a t is t h e p e rc e n t a ge o f t h o s e c h il d re n t h a tyo u h a ve

examine d tha t y ou actua lly f ind some sort of traum a in thei r sex ual org a n o r in thei r anus w hen t hey ’v e g iv en t h is t yp e o f

h is t o ry? Andl eman: Ver y unl ik ely to find i t. [The St ate]: Can y ou ex pla in to t he j ur y w hy thatmig ht be ? Andl eman: There are a l ot of reason s w hy , es peci all y i n c hil dren. W hen i t’ s a st ran gerwit h the ch il d, s omeone t hat doe sn’t really ca re a bou t the child, the y don ’t care if they hur t t hem or

w hat t hey

mig ht l eav e behind, but w hen it’s someo ne wh o kno w s the child—a nd u sually wit h t h is k in d o f

s e xu a l a b u s e , i tis so m e o n e wh o kn o ws th e c h ild; it ’s not a s trang er —th ey w ant a cc ess to the chi ld ov er

and ov er

ag ain

. So if

t h e y h urt t hem, t he child ha s more of

a chan ce of

s aying to stop or to tell, w here [sic] than if th ey don ’t hu rt t h em or they make it a g ame, they w il l be abl e to hav e acc ess ov er and ov er14 ag ain

.

. . . . [T he Sta te]: And e ve n wi t h the history tha t [V.N.] gave, that the se

things had hap pen ed m ore tha n on e time , w oul d this f inding tha t y ou h ad still be i n d ic a t ive tha t the history giv en was w hatit w as? And lem an: Yes.

. . . . [The Stat e]: Now , [ defense c o u n se l] as ked about the ex aminat ion

and w het her or notit y ielded any—any actu al evi den ce that she had bee n sex ual ly abuse d. Di d it dis prov e tha t she had bee n s ex ual ly

abus ed? An dl em an : N o, ma ’ am . [T he St ate ]: And is that be cause ty pically y ou d o no t f ind trau ma in

the se case s? Andl eman: That’s co rrect

. Next, Trev ino poi nts to tes ti mony from R ic ardo J imenez , a forens icex aminer at the Children’s Ad v ocacy Center: [The Stat e]: And M r. Ji menez, wh e n yo u a re i nter v iew ing a chi ld, w hat a re so me of the t hin g s y ou l ook for i n ter ms of w het h e r o r no t a child is g iv ing i nforma tion th at is cons is tent w it h abus e? [Jime nez]: W ell, the most—I me an, the th ing y ou loo kfor mo st in

the se case s is the det ails that t h e y’re prov iding, if they ’re abl e to tel l y ou w h a t hap pened, seei ng app ropriate emo tions, the type o f w ording thatthey’re usi ng , as w ell , t hin g s t hey sh o u ld know , t hin g s t hey shoul dn’ t k now . Those are the thi ng s y ou loo k for, t he det ails. [The Stat e]: And i n [ V. N. ]’ s vide o , did s he g iv e y ou det ail s about

w hather—w hatthe de fend antdid to he r?15

[J i me ne z ]: Y es , ma ’ am . [The Stat e]: An d w a s she ab le to de sc rib e ho w th o se th in gs

happened and w hat i t feltl ik e? [J i me ne z ]: Y es , ma ’ am . Now here in this testim ony do And lem an or Jim ene zo f fer a direct op inion o n V.N.’s tr ut hfu l ne s s ; rat he r , An dl em an a nd J i me ne zme rel y t es ti fi ed t ha t V. N

. ex hi bi te d s y mp to ms cons is tent w it h s ex ual abus e, w hic h i s a dmis si ble ev ide nce. See Schu tz , 957 S. W .2d a t 73; see als o R ushi

ng, 2010 W L 2171628, at *5. H ad Trev ino ’s att or ney obj ect ed, t he tr ial
cour t w oul d nothav e abus ed i ts dis creti on i n ov er ru li ng the obj ect ion; th erefore, Trev ino has not e sta bli shed ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el on th is bas is

. F. Failure to Object to Improper Jury A rgument T re v i no arg ue s th at hi s c ou ns el w as i ne ffecti v e i n fai l i ng to ob j ec t to th e Sta te’s imp rope r jury

argumen t during both pha ses of h is t ri a l. W e disagree. Pe rmissible jury
arg ument g enerall y

fall s i nto o ne of f o u r a re a s: (1 ) summati on of the ev ide nce; ( 2)
re asona ble deduc ti on from t he ev ide nce; (3) a n a nsw er to the a rg ument of oppos ing
couns e l; o r (4 ) a pl ea for law enforc ement. Ber

ry v. Sta te , 2 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 9 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007)

. If the State’ s cl osi ng arg ument w as proper , Trev ino ’s co unsel w as not defici ent b y

fail ing to obj ect

. See White , 160 S.W .3d a t 53. 1. Guilt-Innocenc e Phas e Closing A rgument Trev ino arg ues that hi s couns el fail ed to objectto the fol low ing st atement dur ing the Stat e’s cl osi ng arg ument: [ K ] id s d o n o th a ve t h e a b il it y t o d e s c ri b e se xu a l e n c o u n t e rs u n le s s t h e y’ve experience d the m. . . . W here w ould she ha v e gotten thatknowl edge, if it did n’thappen to her ?16

. . . . Is it reaso nab le tha t the se children can com e in and g iv e y ou su ch graphic detai ls aboutse x ual enc ounters t hey had and i t notbe t ru e? Trev ino cl aims thatthe Stat e’s arg ument i nser ted n ew facts i nto e v ide nce and i mpli ed th at the re has “never been a false allegatio n of sex ual ab use. ” Trev ino ’s i nter pretati on of the re cord, however , i s i ncor re ct. As note d abov e, Jime nez testif ied that w hen he interv iew s a sexual abu se com plaina nt, he looks for deta ils and “things they s h o u ld k n ow, things the y shou ldn’t kno w .” The State point ed to V.N.’s tes ti mony

des cr ibi ng the detai ls of her as saul t and arg ued t hat s he s houl d be cons ide re d
a c re dib le w it ness , w hic h i s a r e a so n a b le deducti on from t he ev ide nce. See Andu jo v. S tate , 755 S. W .2d 1 38, 1 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988) ( hol din g thatan a ttor ney w il l be afforded w ide l ati tude in cl osi ng arg ument “ so lon g as hi s a rg ument i s su ppor ted b y the
e vide n ce a n d o f

fe re d in goo d fa it h ”) (qu o ti n g Gr if fi n v . St ate , 5 5 4 S

. W

. 2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 6 (T e x. Crim. App

. 197 7)). Beca use the State’s arg um ent w as w ithin the bou n d s o f a c c e pta ble
arg ument, Trev ino ’s co unsel w as not i neffect iv e for faili ng to obj ect

. See White , 160 S.W .3d a t 53. 2. Punishme nt Phase Closi ng A rgument Trev ino next arg ues that at t he c los e of the puni shmentphas e of tr ial , t he St ate
arg ued t o the j ur

y that“ [s] ex ual abuse is a s o u l-k iller” and “ probati on . . . i s a Ju deoChr is ti an c oncep t t hat deals w it h atonement . . . making up for w hat y ou’ v e done w ro ng .” T he St ate later argued th at “com mu nity supe rv ision allows the m t o wa lk a ro und just like y o u a n d I , s o me re s t r i c t i o n s , b ut w ho’ s re a l l y t o m o n i t o r

t h a t ? T h e d e fe n d a n th i ms e l f. Beca use there’s not so mebody w alk ing around w it h hi m [tw enty -four ] hou rs a da y .”17

Trev ino arg ues that thi s a rg ument i s n ot ba sed on any ev ide nce in the c ase. A plea for law

enforcem entmay include an arg um entregarding the relationsh ip betw een t he j ur

y 's v erdict and the deter re nce of spec ificcri mes or cr ime in g eneral. Bor jan
v. State , 787 S.W .2d 53, 55 (Tex. Crim. App . 199 0). Th e Sta te m ay also rem ind th e jury
o f t h e e ffe c t t h a t i t s v e rd i c t ma y h a v e o n t h e c o mm u n i ty

. Id. at 56. The comment that sexual abu se is a “soul -k il le r” is a prope r plea for law enforcem entbeca use it is a desc ri pti on of the eff ect that the cr ime has on th e c ommunity . See i d. Li kew is e, t he prosec utor ’s di sc uss ion of communi ty super v is ion i s a ls o a p lea for l aw enforc ement t hat infor ms t he j ur

y of t he eff ect of its dec is ion to impos e j ail ti me i nst ead of probati on. See id. ; see als o Schi

llin gv. State , No

. 0 4 -0 8 -0 0 5 9 1 -C R, 2 0 0 9 W L 2 7 7 8 6 6 7 , a t*3 (T e x. App.–S an Ant oni o Sept . 2, 2009, pet. ref’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (n oti ng , i n dict a, that pros ecut or ’s comment that probat ion is a “jok e” w as a proper pl ea for la w enforcem ent ); T

hib oult v . St ate, No. 2-06 -449 -CR, 200 8 W L 457 57, at *5 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth J an. 3 , 2 0 0 8 , p et. re f’d) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (h old ing thata prosec utor ’s co mments that “[ y]ou g iv e him probati on, y ou c oul d w alk out of t he cour

troom w it h him” and “[ g ]et on the ele v ator w it h hi m; y ou c an foll ow hi m home”
w ere no t impro per). Beca use th e argume nts w ere prop er, trial co unse l’s failure to o bject did not cons ti tute ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce. G. A rg um entt o th e T rial C ou rtR egar di ng C um ul at iv e Sen te nces T rev ino a rgue s thathis attorn ey failed to objectto w hathe calls “inf lam ma tory
arg ument” thatthe Stat e made to the tri al cour t. After the jur y w as dis charg ed, t he St ate
arg ued t o the tr ial co urt t hat Trev ino ’s se ntenc es shoul d be cumul ated:18

Y ou heard the tes ti mony of the v ic ti m. . . .[She] su ff ered tremendous ly at the han ds of this defend ant , Jud ge . You hea rd her describe in g raph ic deta il w hat s he had to en dure a t h is hands

. But not o nly that , Y our

H onor , y ou know that this child w as take n f rom the ju risdiction of the cou rt to avoid his tr ial the firs t t ime that w e w ere c all ed to j ur y tr ial

. The defendant t est ified that he ac tual ly

broug ht [ B.G. ] a car . That c ar w as pro b a b ly u se d to lea v e to Mex ico w ith the ch ild. He a lso testif ied, Your Hon or, tha t he ha d en tered this count ry i ll eg all y . If his sent ences conc ur re ntl y [s ic ] and ev en—s ay

he d oes do th e [t en] y ears, there i s n othi ng to prev ent t his defendant from then comi ng bac k, if he i s d epor ted t o M ex ic o, ba ck

i nto t his co untr

y i ll eg all y and bei ng around c hil dren i n our communi ty

. And for th ose re asons , I am as ki ng t h a tyo u co n s id e r r u n n in g e a c h o f t h e s e co u n t s co n s e c u t ive ly. Trev ino ca ll s t his arg ument “ infla mmator y ,” but he does not cit e a s ing le cas e tha t suppo rts h is a rg ument t hat t ri al couns el can be hel d i neffect iv e for faili ng to obj ectto state me nts m ade bythe St ate to the t rial jud ge outside the pre sence of the jury, particularly wh e r e t h e t ria l co u rtha s b ro a d di sc re ti o n to gran t t h e rel ie f th a t t h e St a te is re que st in g. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3.03. The t ri al cour t hea rd al l the t est imony i n the c ase and
wa s p e rf e c t ly c a p a b le o f fe rr e t in g o u twh a tru li n g wa s su p p o rt e d b y t h e e vid e n c e , a n d we
w ill notpresum e tha t a trial court w as imp rope rl y sw ayed by “inf lam ma tory” argumen t, if any . See Lopez

v. Sta te , 725 S.W .2d 4 87, 4 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1987, no p et.) (“ [T]he t ri al cour

t w as si tti ng as tr ier

of fact and w as qui te capabl e of di sreg ardin g any imp rope r arg um ent , and w ill be p resum ed to have done so.” ). A c c o rd in gly , w e reject Trev ino ’s arg ument. Fur ther more, Trev ino arg ues that hi s tr ial counsel improp er ly i nje cte d hi s n ati onal ity as an i ss ue i n the case. On directex aminat ion byhis attor ney , Trev ino tes ti fied th at he entered the Uni ted Stat es il leg all y , but he q ual ified for amnes ty and became a per manent residen t. Th e Sta te a rg u e s t h at th is testimo ny w as ad mitt ed a s part of trial counse l’s dev elo pment of Tre v ino ’s l ife hi sto ry , w hic h i s p lau si ble tr ial st ra teg y because hi s c ounse l19

could have been try ing to be c a n d id abo ut his client’s sho rtcom ings i n orde r to build
credi bil ity

w it h the j ur

y . See M ar ti n v . St ate , 265 S.W .3d 435 , 446 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Di st. ] 200 7, no pet. ). Trev ino di d notq uest ion hi s a ttor ney at the h ear ing on the moti on for
new tri al reg ardin g the re ason hi s attor ney introduce d T re v ino ’s national ity at tr ial . Gi v en tha t this could be a pla usible trial strate gy , o n t h is r e cord, we canno t say tha t Tre v ino’s
couns el w as ine ff ect iv e. Ry lan der , 101 S.W .3d a t 110 -1 1. Hav ing reje cte d al l of Trev ino ’s arg uments , w e ov er ru le his se cond is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Havi ng ov erruled a ll of

Trevino’s issues, w e af f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.