### I N THE COUR T O F CRIMINA L APPEAL S FO RTHE STAT E O F TEXA S AUSTIN , TEXA S

TEVI N SHERAR

D ELLIOTT , § Petitione r § § 

### § vs . § NO . 

### § § THE STAT E O F TEXAS , § Responden t§

*************** * 

### PETITIO N FO RDISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W O F TH E COURT O F APPEAL S FO RTH E TENT H DISTRIC T O F TEXA S NUMBE R10-14-00112-C R

*************** *

WILLIA M A . BRATTON , II I Attorne y a

t Law On e Quadrangl e Towe r 282 8 Rout

h St. , Suit e 67 5 Dallas , Texa s 7520 1 (214 ) 871-113 3 offic e (214 ) 871-062 0 fa

x Stat e Bar No . 0291630 0 Emai l - bill@brattonlaw.co m ATTORNE Y FO RPETITIONE R (O N APPEA L ONLY ) PD-0805-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 7/8/2015 12:59:32 PM Accepted 7/9/2015 4:22:28 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTABL E OF CONTENTS Pag e INDE X O F AUTHORITIES -iii CERTIFICAT

E O F INTERESTE

D PERSON

S 2 STATEMEN

T REGARDIN

G ORA L ARGUMEN

T 3 STATEMEN

T O F TH E CASE 4 STATEMEN

T O F PROCEDURA

L HISTOR

Y 1 3 GROUNDS FO

RREVIE W 1 3 REASO N FO RREVIE W 1 1 4 

### Th e Cour to f Appeals ' decisio n incorrectly upheld th e convictio n o f Petitione r by holdin g thatth e Petitione r was no tdenie d hi s Sixt h AmendmentRigh tt

o effective assistanc e o f

counsel a ttrial . REASO N FO RREVIE W I I 1 9 

### The Cour to f Appeals ' decision incorrectly upheld th e conviction of Petitione r b

y holdin g thatth e Stat e did notpresen

tperjured testimon y throug h Jasmin Hernande

z regardin g her stat

e of sobriet y during th e event

s alleged in th e Indictment. PRAYE R2 1 CERTIFICAT

E O F SERVIC

E 2 2

PETITIO N FO RDISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - i iINDE X O F AUTHORITIE S CASES : E x part e Chabot , 30 0 S.W.3 d 76 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2009 ) 17 , 1 9 E x part e Ghahremani , 33 2 S.W.3 d 47 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 2011 ) 17 , 1 9 E x parte Napper , 322 S.W.3 d 20 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010 ) 17 , 1 9 Hernandez v . State , 98 8 S.W.2 d 770 , 77 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 1999 ) 1 3 Johnsto n v . State , 14

5 S.W.3 d 21 5 (Tex.Crim.App . 2004 ) 1 6 Menefiel d v . State , 36 3 S.W.3 d 59 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 2012 ) 1 5 Navav . State , 41 5 S.W.3 d 289 , 307 (Tex . Crim . App . 2013 ) 1 3 Strickland v . Washington , 46 6 U.S . 66 8 (1984 ) 13 , 15 , 1 6

STATUTES : Tex . R . App . Proc . 39. 1 3 Tex . R . App . Proc . 66.3(b ) an d (c ) 1 7 Tex . R . Aapp . Proc . 66.3(c ) an d (f ) 1 3 Tex . R . Evid . 404(b ) 1 6 Tex . R . Evid . 40 1 1 6 Tex.R.Evid . 40 3 1 6

PETITIO N FO RDISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - ii i

### I N TH E COURT O F CRIMINA L APPEAL S FO RTHE STAT E O F TEXA S AUSTIN , TEXA S

TEVIN SHERAR

D ELLIOTT , Petitione r

vs . § NO. § 

### § THE STAT E O F TEXAS , § Responden t§

*************** * 

### PETITIO N FO RDISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W O F TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S FO RTH E TENT H DISTRIC T O F TEXA S NUMBE R10-14-00112-C R

*************** * 

### T O TH E HONORABL

E JUDGE S OF SAI

D COURT : NO W COME S TEVI N SHERAR

D ELLIOTT , Petitione

r herein an d respectfull y petition s th e Honorable Cour t t o revie w th e Opinion o f

th e Cour t o f Appeal s fo

r the Tent h District of Texas a t Waco .

### CERTIFICATE OFINTERESTED PERSONS

Th e undersigne d Counse l o f Recor d certifie s tha

t th e followin g liste d person s hav e a

n interes t in th e outcom

e of thi s case . Thes e representation s ar e mad e i n order tha t th e Cour t ma y evaluat e possibl e disqualificatio n or recusal . Distric t Judg e Honorabl e Mat t Johnso n 54 t h

### Judicia l Distric t Judg e Defendant/Petitione

r Tevin Sherar d Elliot t Appea l Attorney fo

r Petitioner Willia

mA . Bratton , Dalla s Tria l Attorney fo

r Petitioner Jaso n Darling , Wac o McLenna n County , Texa s Tria l Attorney fo

r th e Stat e AD A Hilar y LaBorde , Wac o AD A Rober t Moody , Wac o Appea l Attorney fo

r Stat e D A Abe l Reyna , Wac o Sterlin g Harmon , Wac o

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 2

### ST A TEMENT

REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Texa s Rule o f

Appellate Procedur

e 39. 1 states : A part y who ha s filed abrie f

an d wh o ha s timely requeste d ora l argumen t ma y argu e th e cas e t

o the cour t unles s th e court , afte

r examinin g th e briefs , decide s tha

t ora l argumen t i s unnecessar

y fo r an y o f th e following reasons : (a) th e appea

l i s frivolous ; (b ) th e dispositiv e issu e o

r issue s hav e been authoritativel y decided ; (c ) th e fact s an

d lega l argument s are adequately presente d i n th e brief s an d record ; or (d ) th e decisiona

l proces s would not

b e significantly aide d by ora l argument . Petitioner woul d urg e th e cour

t tha t non e o f th e reason s to den

y ora l argumen t se t fort h i n Tex . R . App . Proc . 39. 1 apply t o th e instan

t appeal . Th e factua

l issue s i n th e appeal , a s applie d to th e lega l standards , ar

e complicate d an

d ora l argumen

t would assis t

th e cour t i n it s decisiona

l process . Particularly , Groun d fo r Revie w I , relatin g t

o th e denia

l o f effectiv e assistanc e o f

counsel . Th e Ground fo r Review require s acomplete consideratio n o f

th e tria l strategy , a s well a s Petitioner' s Point s o f Error I - I V an d V I - X i n Petitioner' s Appellant' s Brie f a s they relate t

o th e conduc t o f th e defens e o f

Petitioner .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 3

### STA TEMENT OFTHE CASE Evidence fo r th e State : Jasmin Hernande z testifie d tha t she wa s th e "Jan e Doe " allege d i n th e Indictmen t pendin g agains t

th e Petitioner . (R.R.I

V 29) . I n the sprin g of 2012 , Ms . Hernande z wa s asecond semeste r freshma n a t Baylor livin g i n Waco . (R.R.IV30) . O n April 14 , 2012 , afrien

d o f Ms . Hernande z who live d i n th e dor m wit h he r invite d her

t o g o to aparty . (R.R.I

V 39) . Ms . Hernande z di d not remembe r th e nam e o f th e apartmen

t complex but

Ms . Hernande z rod e t

o th e part y wit h anothe r frien d by th e nam

e o f Shannon . (R.R.IV 41) . Whe n she arrive d a t the party , everyon e wa s "jus t socializing" . (R.R.IV 41) . Whil e a t th e party , Ms . Hernande z testifie d tha t sh e ha d "mayb e 2 cups " o f

apunch an d a"sho t of vodka" . (R.R.IV 42) . Sh e wa s introduce d to he

r frien d Catrina' s boyfriend , th e Petitioner . (R.R.I V 42) . All o f

th e girl s who wen

t wit h Ms . Hernande z had their picture s mad

e wit h th e Petitioner . (R.R.IV 42) . Late

r i n th e evening , afte

r Ms . Hernande z ha

d gon e t o th e bathroom , she cam e out an d didn' t se e an y of he r friends . (R.R.IV 47) . Th e Petitioner wa s nearb y an

d offered t o help Ms . Hernande z loo

k fo r her friends . (R.R.I

V 47) . The

y bega n lookin g inside th e apartment , whe n Ms . Hernande z

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 4

### testifie d th e Petitioner offere d to tak e he r outsid e and loo

k fo r them . (R.R.IV 48) . Th e Petitioner wa s "mor e guidin g and leading " Ms . Hernande z outside . (R.R.I

V 49) . Ms . Hernande z testifie d tha t sh e woul d not

hav e gon e outsid e bu t fo r th e Petitioner

leadin g he

r outside . (R.R.IV 49) . Afte r they wen t ou t th e fron t door , there wer

e other peopl e outside , bu t Ms . Hernande z an

d th e Petitione

r kept walkin g furthe

r fromthem . (R.R.IV 50) . Th e Petitioner then picke d Ms . Hernande z u p and carrie d he

r acros s th e street

to aclose d area . (R.R.I

V 50-52) . Th e Petitioner

ha d taken he r t o arecreationa

l shack an d the n pu t he r o n th e groun d outsid e o f

th e shack . (R.R.I

V 52) . Ms . Hernande z testifie d tha t th e Petitioner

took down he r pants . (R.R.IV 52) . Ms . Hernande z wa s shoutin g out "I' mgay . I' m gay. " and t o tak

e he r back t o th e part y sh e neede d t

o se e he r friends . (R.R.IV 54) . Ms . Hernande z then testifie d tha t th e Petitioner

bega n havin g se

x wherei n hi s peni s penetrate d he r vagina . (R.R.IV 59) . Whe n th e Petitioner finished h e then allowe d he r to ge t u p an d pu t hersel f together . (R.R.IV 62) . Th e Petitioner

then le d her

t o th e swimming poo l are awher e h e agai n pulle d down he r pant s an d penetrate d he

r whil e he presse d he

r agains t afence . (R.R.IV 62) .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 5

### Afte

r th e Petitioner

finished , Ms . Hernande z testifie d tha t h e wa s read y t o g o an

d sh e state d she couldn' t

fin d he r shirt . (R.R.IV 65) . Th e Petitione r then looked around an

d foun d he r shir t an d then the y returne d t

o th e party . (R.R.I

V 65) . Afte r Ms . Hernande z returne d to th e part y sh e tol d he

r friend s tha

t she ha d bee n "raped " and he

r frien d Shannon took

he r straight fro mth e part y t o th e hospital . (R.R.IV 70) . A t th e Hillcres t

Hospital , Michel e Davis , who wa s directo r o f th e Sexua l Assault Nurs e Examine

r Program , conducte d asexua l assault examinatio n o

n Ms . Hernandez . (R.R.III 56-61) . During th e cours e o f th e examination , Ms . Davi s obtaine d information fro mMs . Hernande z whic h she wrot e verbatimint

o he r report . (R.R.III 72) . She als o note d an y injurie s which sh e foun

d i n he r repor t an d collecte d evidence . (R.R.III 63-65) . Bradley Skaggs , apatro l office r wit h th e Wac o Polic e Departmen t receive d acall t

o check wit h apatient

a t Hillcres t Hospita l on Apri l 15 , 2012 . (R.R.III 25-27) . Th e individua l which he me

t wa s Jasmi n Hernandez . (R.R.II I 27) . Whe n Office r Skagg s me

t wit h Ms . Hernandez , sh e seemed kin d of upset an d ha d mu d o n her . (R.R.III 27) . Office r Skagg s als o believe d tha

t she ha d bee n drinkin g previou s t

o hi s encounte

r wit h her . (R.R.II I 27) . PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 6

### Ms . Hernande z advise d Office r Skagg s tha

t she wa s a

t th e Aspen Height s Apartmen

t an d briefly tol d th e office

r tha t she ha d been assaulte d behin d th e buildin g tha

t wa s beside avolleybal l court . (R.R.II I 32) . She gav e adescriptio n tha

t ha d apicket

fenc e around th e dec k

behin d th e building . (R.RIII 32) . She als o mentione d aswimmin g poo l righ t there als o an d awalkwa

y between th e volleybal l cour t an d thi s building . (R.R.III 32

- 33) . Office

r Skagg s lef

t th e hospita

l an d wen t ove r t o th e are adescribe d t

o hi mby Ms . Hernande z an

d foun d acamouflage-lookin g iPo d an d a n earrin g i n th e mud . (RR.III 33) . Lesle y Johnson , ascientis t

wit h the Texa s Departmen

t o f Publi c Safet y Crim e Laborator

y i n Wac o performed tes t

lookin g fo

r evidenc e o f biologica l materia l tha t coul d contai n DN

A tha t coul d compar

e to aknown profil e from asuspec t

o r victimon item s submitte d t o her . (RR.I

V 11-12) . Ms . Johnso n wa s not

th e chemis t

who actually teste d th e DN A i n th e cas e tha t wa s performed by Erin Casmus . (RR.I V 12) . Test s were run on a vagina l swab , ana

l swab , ora

l swab , know

n sampl e of

Appellant , known sampl e o f Ms . Hernandez , a

n earrin g an

d som e panties . (R.R.I

V 12-18) . Th e presumptiv e tes t

wa s negativ e o

n th e vagina

l swa b an d th e panties . (R.R.I

V 15) . Th e earrin g wa s als o teste d an d no profil e wa s

PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 7

### obtained . (R.R.I V 18) . O n th e ana l swab , there wa s amixtur e o f th e victi m and on e unknow n perso n o n th e DNA . (R.R.IV 21) . A tes t o f th e Appellant' s known sampl e and the unknown DN A resulte d i

n th e fac t tha t th e Appellan

t coul d not b e excluded . (R.R.I

V 23) . Shannon Valverde , drov e aca r which took

Ms . Hernande z t

o th e part y on Apri l 14 , 2012 . (R.R.IV 110) . A t th e party , Ms . Valverde wa s briefly introduce d t

o th e Petitioner

b y he r frien d "Cat" . (R.R.IV 111) . A t one point , Ms . Valverd e and Ms . Hernande z lef t th e party . (R.R.IV 112) . They late r cam e bac k becaus e they go t

acall fro

m"Cat " tha

t they ha d los t Christin aan

d they wante d he

r t o com e back an d hel p the mfind her . (R.R.IV 113) . Ms . Valverde couldn' t remembe r ho w lon g they wer

e lookin g fo

r Christina , bu

t they finally foun

d her . (R.R.IV 113) . Afte r the y foun

d Christina , Ms . Valverd e sa w Ms . Hernande z around th e fenc e are aclose d t o wher e sh e ha d parke d he

r car . (R.R.I

V 115) . Ms . Hernande z wa s cryin g hysterically . (R.R.IV 115) . Whe n asked wha

t th e matte

r was , Ms . Hernande z tol d Ms . Valverd e she ha d been raped . (R.R.IV 115) . Ms . Valverd e the n too k

th e actio n o f

takin g Ms . Hernande z directl y to th e hospita l t o ge t he r ou t o f th e situation . (R.R.I

V 115) .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 8

### Evidenc e fo r th e Defense :

The Petitioner

testifie d tha

t o n Apri l 14 , 2012 , h e wa s amembe r o f th e Baylor

football tea

mand they ha

d jus t finishe d their

sprin g football game . (R.R.IV 139) . It wa s als o teammate , Glasc o Martin's , birthday . (R.R . I V 139) . Ther

e wa s goin g t

o b e apart y a t Mr . Martin' s apartmen

t tha t evenin g a t th e Aspen Height s Apartmen t Complex . (R.R.IV 140) . Th e Petitioner drov e he and hi s brother

to th e party . (R.R.IV 140) . A t th e party , th e Petitione

r sa w agir l name d "Cat " tha

t h e ha d been seeing . (R.R.IV 141) . The Petitione

r invite d "Cat " t o th e part

y bu t didn' t kno w she wa s goin g t o brin g all of

he r friend s wit

h her . (R.R.I

V 141) . "Cat " and all o f

he r friend s arrive d about

te n or fiftee n minute s afte

r th e Petitioner

arrived . (R.R.I

V 142) . They al l wer

e introduce d to th e Petitioner and bega n havin g picture s mad

e wit h him . (R.R.IV 143) . Later , th e Petitioner

dance d wit

h "Cat " an

d als o wit h Ms . Hernandez . (R.R.IV 144) . "Cat " wen t

of f somewher

e and th e Petitioner

wa s lef t dancin g wit h Ms . Hernandez . (R.R.IV 144) . A t one point , Ms . Hernande z grabbe d th e Petitioner' s han d and went to th e bathroomarea . (R.R.IV 145) . Afte r sh e finished she bega

n lookin g fo

r he r friend s whomthe y coul d no t find. (R.R.IV 145) . Ms . Hernande z then grabbe d th e Petitioner' s hand and pulle d

PETITIO NFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 9

### hi

moutsid e sayin g tha

t sh e wante d t

o g o outside t

o se e i f she coul d find he

r friends . (R.R.I

V 146) . Afte r they got outside , Ms . Hernande z wante d t o wal k down th e street , she grabbe d hi s hand and they wer e walkin g whe

n sh e jumpe d on hi s waist.Sh e pu

t he r leg s around Petitioner' s wais t and wa s kissin g th e Petitioner all ove r th e nec k an d ear . (R.R.I

V 147) . Th e Petitioner

continue d walkin g fo

r abou t another 3 0 yard s an

d stoppe d b y th e sid e of

th e basketbal l court . (R.R.I

V 148) . Th e Petitione

r lai d he r down and they starte d kissin g and makin g ou

t and sh e bega

n t o pull he r ow n clothe s off

. (R.R.IV 149) . Th e Petitioner

an d Ms . Hernande z bega

n havin g sex , but

sa w there wa s another individua l nearb y and bega

n t o pull thei r

clothe s bac k

on . (R.R.IV 149) . Th e Petitione

r an d Ms . Hernande z wen

t t o th e bac k o f abuildin g an

d again bega

n engagin g i

n sexua l contact . (R.R.IV 151) . Onc e they ha d finished behind th e building , they the n moved t

o th e poo l area . (R.R.IV 153) . The y again engage d i

n se x act s by th e pool . (R.R.IV 153-54) . Whe n the y ha d finished , they go t

dresse d an

d wen t bac k t o th e party . (.RR.I

V 155) .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 0

### Whe

n th e Petitioner

and Ms . Hernande z first

lef t th e part y and she jumpe d u p o n hi mwit h he r leg s around hi s waist , th e Petitioner' s cellphon e bega n recordin g vide o and audi o fo r abou t aminute . (R.R.IV 158) . Tarnian e Elliott , th e Petitioner' s brother , testifie d tha t o n April 14 , 2012 , h e wen

t wit h th e Petitione

r t o apart y a t th e Aspen Height s Apartments . (R.R.IV 190-91) . A t th e party , Mr . Elliot

t observe d hi s brother an d "Cat " wit

h he r friends . (R.R.IV 191) . Mr . Elliot t sa w hi s brothe

r dancin g wit

h "Cat " an

d he r friend s includin g Ms . Hernandez . (R.R.IV 192) . He describe d Ms . Hernande z dancin g wit

h hi s brother

a s "grinding , gyrating" . (R.R.IV 192) . He late r sa w Ms . Hernande z wit

h hi s brother' s han

d leadin g hi

mout o f th e door . (R.R.IV 193) . Rebutta l Evidenc e fo r th e State ; Jorda n Rhodes , Kelse

y Ehlare s an

d Tor i Diamond wer

e calle d by th e Stat e t o testif y a s t o attempte d an

d actua l sexua l encounter s whic h eac h of th e individual s ha

d wit h th e Petitione

r o n differen t occasions . Each o f

th e individual s testifie d tha

t th e encounter s they testifie d t o wer e nonconsensual . (R.R.IV 211,249 , V21) .

PETITIO NFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 1

### Rebutta

l Evidence fo r th e Defense ; Antwa n Goodley , testifie d tha

t he wa s afootball player fo r Baylo r Universit y an d knew th e Petitione

r a s ateammate . (R.R. V 37) . Mr . Goodle y wen t to apart y a t Glasc o Martin' s i

n th e middl e o f

April , 2012 , the sam e da y a s the sprin g football game . (R.R. V 37-38) . Mr . Goodley sa

w th e Petitioner

a t th e part y dancin g wit

h agir l who wa s "grindin g all u

p o n him" . (R.R. V 38) . Ms . Goodle y the n sa w the Petitioner an d th e gir l leav e th e danc e floo

r afte r sh e grabbe d hi s han

d an d walke d hi mou t th e door . (R.R. V 39) . He testifie d tha t th e gir l di d not appea r frightened o r

scared . (R.R. V 39) . Joh n Rozyskie , adetectiv e wit h th e Wac o Polic e Department , testifie d tha t all o f th e report s mad

e by Jorda

n Rhodes , Kelse

y Ehlare s and Tor

i Diamond di d not

result i n th e arres t

of th e Petitioner . (R.R. V 34) . Charlotte Matthews , adetectiv e wit h th e Wac o Polic e Department , investigate d a repor t mad e by Jorda n Rhodes . (R.R. V 49) . Th e result o f her investigatio n wa s tha t th e complain

t wa s unfounded . (RR. V 60) . She furthe r reviewe d a complain t mad e b y Tor i Diamond , an

d sa w tha t th e investigatio n took

no actio n o n he r allegation s other

tha n t o issu e aClas s C ticke t

fo r Assault . (R.R. V 73) .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 2

### ST A TEMENT

OFPROCEDURAL HISTORY O n April 23 , 2015 , th e Cour t o f Appeal s fo

r th e Tent h Distric t o f Texa s a t Wac o affirme

d th e judgment

o f conviction . (Se e Appendi x "A") . Petitioner filed aMotion fo

r Rehearin g o

n Ma y 8 , 2015 . O

n Ma y 28 , 2015 , th e Cour t of Appeal s fo

r th e Tent h Distric t o f Texa s a t Wac o denie d Petitioner' s Motion fo

r Rehearing . (See Appendix "B") . GROUNDS FOR REVIEW I . The Cour

to f Appeals ' decisio n incorrectl y uphel d th e convictio n o f

Petitione r by holdin g thatth e Petitione r was no tdenie d hi s Sixt

h Amendmen

tRigh tto effective assistanc e o f

counsel attrial . II . The Cour

tof Appeals ' decision incorrectly upheld th e conviction o f

Petitione r b

y holding tha

tth e Stat

e did not presen tperjured testimon

y throug h Jasmin Hernande

z regarding her stat

e o f sobriet y during th e event

s alleged in th e Indictment.

PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 3

### REASONS FOR REVIEW I . The Cour

to f Appeals ' decisio n incorrectly upheld th e convictio n o f

Petitione r b

y holdin g thatth e Petitione r was notdenie d hi s Sixt

h Amendmen

tRigh tt

o effective assistanc e o f

counsel attrial . REASO N FO RREVIEW : Petitione r would sho w th e Cour

t tha t discretionar

y revie w shoul d b e grante d base d upo

n TEX . R . APP . PROC . 66.3(c ) and (f ) i n tha t th e cour t o f appeal s ha s writte n adecisio n i n conflict wit h th e Cour

t of Crimina l Appeal s an

d th e Suprem

e Cour t o f th e United States ; Stricklan d v . Washington . 46 6 U.S . 668 , (1984) ; Nav av . State . 41 5 S.W.3 d 289 , 30 7 (Tex . Crim . App . 2013) ; Hernandez v . State . 98 8 S.W.2d 770 , 77 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 1999) , and ha s s o fa r departe d fro

mth e accepte d an

d usua l cours e of judicial proceeding s a s to call fo r a n exercis e o f

th e Cour t o f Crimina l Appeals ' powe

r o f supervision. . ARGUMENT : 

### O n origina l submission , the pane

l opinion o f

th e Cour t o f Appeal s held tha t Petitioner' s Poin

t o f Erro r XI , complaining of

th e denia l o f effective assistanc e o f

counsel t o the Petitione

r a t trial , wa s not

error becaus e the "tria

l cour t di d no t abus e it s discretio n i

n denying th e Appellant' s Motion fo r Ne w Tria l o n thi s groun

d fo r ineffective assistanc e o f

counsel. " PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 4

### Th

e Court' s decision focuse

d primaril y o n tw o issues . The first

issu e wa s the complet

e absenc e o f

an y acknowledgmen

t o f aga p i n the apartment' s surveillanc e vide o a

t th e tim e the Petitione

r an d Jasmin Hernandez woul

d hav e bee n a t the swimmin

g pool . The secon

d issu e wa s the tria

l counsel' s decision s t o hav e the Petitione

r testif y a t trial . Th e cour t summaril y dismisse s the allegation s of th e Petitione

r tha t the tria l counsel faile

d t o cros s examine the victimb y he r written statemen

t an d Point s o f Erro r I-I V an d V I - X . Eac h of th e Point s o f

error wer e handled procedurall

y b y th e cour

t statin g tha

t n o prope r objection wa s raised a

t tria l b y Petitioner' s tria

l counsel . The Cour

t of Appeal s fail s t

o conside r al l o f th e deficiencie s o f

counse l clearly demonstrated by the appellat e record . The Petitione

r attempte d t

o clearl y demonstrat

e failure s o f

counsel' s performanc e not

i n th e appellat

e recor d throug h the hearing o

n the Motion fo

r Ne w Trial . The Petitione

r furthe r demonstrated counsel' s deficiencie s through the act s performe

d by counsel during the cours e of the tria l tha t wer e contained withi n the record . The Court' s holding s i n Point s of

Erro r I-I V an d V I - X show the complet

e failur e o f a n objective standar

d o f reasonablenes s of

th e performanc e of

counsel . T o obtai n relie f

fo r ineffectiv e assistanc e o f

counsel , a

n Appellant mus t establish , b y apreponderanc e of th e evidence , that : (1 ) tria l counsel' s

PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 5

### performanc e fel l "belo w a

n objectiv e standar

d o f reasonableness" , an

d (2 ) there wa s areasonabl e probabilit y tha t the result o f th e proceeding s woul d hav e been differen

t but fo r tria l counsel' s deficien

t performance . Stricklan d v . Washington , 46 6 U.S . 66 8 (1984) ; Menefield v . State . 36 3 S.W.3 d 59 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 2012) . The Court' s dismissa

l o f the failur e o f tria l counse l t o exploit the unexplained ga

p i n th e surveillanc e video tha t would hav e demonstrated th e activitie s of

the Petitione

r an d Jasmin Hernande

z a t acritica l poin t durin g th e event s of the evening , wa s b

y asummar

y statemen

t tha t "th e stat e di d not notic e the ga

p until i t wa s pointed i

n Elliott' s Motion fo

r Ne w Trial . I t di d no t thin k th e vide o wa s ver

y important . B y affidavit , tria l counse l fo r Elliot t state d tha t afte r viewing the vide o fo

r trial , h e did not fin d anything t

o contradic t Jasmin' s testimon

y or tha t would b e beneficia

l fo r the defense. " A ga

p i n th e surveillanc e video a

t th e critica

l tim e coul d neve r b e regarde d by an

y competen t counse l a s not beneficia l fo r th e defense . Furthe

r th e State' s view o f the ga p i s of no consequence . The decisio n t

o hav e th e Petitione

r testif y wa s handled by th e Cour t b y statin g tha t "th e tria l judg e i s the sol e judg e of

th e credibilit y o f the witnesses ; h e could have disbelieve d Elliot t an d believed tria

l counsel' s testimony. " Clearly , adeterminatio n of credibilit y i s important , bu

t th e Cour t cannot

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 6

### discoun

t the consequence s th e Petitione r face d by bein g placed o

n th e witnes s stand . The Stat

e cros s examined the Petitione r regarding thre e separate , unrelated , remot

e instance s of

conduct tha t the Petitione

r ha d wit h thre e separat e women . Thi s conduct

wa s introduced a s extraneou s offense s unde r Tex . R . Evid . 404(b) . (R.R.I

V 203-233 , 234-263 , V 7-32) . None o f thes e instance s woul

d hav e qualified a s properl y admissibl e unde

r Tex . R . Evid . 404(b ) an d 403 , becaus e Tex . R

. Evid . 404(b ) state s tha

t "[evidenc e o f other crimes , wrongs , o r

act s i s not

admissibl e t

o prov e th e character

o f a perso n i n orde r t o sho w actio n i

n conformit

y therewith. " Johnsto n v . State . 14 5 S.W.3 d 21 5 (Tex.Crim.App . 2004) . Tex.R.Evid . 40 3 provide s tha t eve n relevant evidenc e ma

y b e exclude d "i f

it s probativ e valu e i s substantiall y outweighe d b

y th e dange

r o f unfai r prejudice , confusion o f

th e issues , or misleadin g th e jury . . . " " 'Relevant evidence ' mean s evidenc e havin g an y tendenc y t

o mak e th e existenc e o f

an y fac t tha t i s o f consequenc e t

o th e determinatio n o f

th e actio n mor

e probabl e or

les s probabl e tha

n i t woul d b e without th e evidence. " Tex . R

. Evid . 401 . Further , th e counsel fo r th e Petitioner di d not objec t t o an y o f thi s testimon

y a s evidenc e b

y th e Court' s handlin g o f

Petitioner' s Point s o f

Error VI , VII , VII

I on direc t appeal . Th e court' s jo b i s t o revie w the performanc e o f Petitioner' s counsel durin g the cours e o f

th e tria l t o determin e whethe

r it fel l "belo w a n objectiv e

PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 7

### standar

d o f reasonableness " an

d tha t ther e i s a"reasonabl e probabilit y tha t th e result of th e proceeding s would hav e bee n differen t bu t fo r tria l counsel' s deficien

t performance. " Stricklan d v . Washington . 46 6 U.S . 66 8 (1984) . The court' s attemp t to restric t

th e determinatio n o f

counsel' s performanc e t

o th e presentatio n o f

evidenc e a

t th e Motio n fo

r Ne w Tria l without reviewin g th e entire performanc e of defens e counsel durin g th e cours e o f th e tria l i s to o restrictiv e aview . I t i s Petitioner' s positio n tha t a n overal l view o f

counsel' s performance , a s demonstrate d by th e hearin g on th e Motion fo

r Ne w Tria l a s well a s th e performanc e durin g th e cours e o f tria l a s demonstrate d by th e tria l record , show s adeficien t level o f performanc e belo w a

n objectiv e standar

d of reasonablenes s t

o th e exten

t tha t i t woul d b e a

n intellectua

l injustic e an

d afarc e t

o hold tha t Petitioner

wa s no t prejudice d b

y counsel' s performance .

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 8

### II .

The Cour

to f Appeals ' decision incorrectly uphel d th e conviction o f

Petitione r b

y holding tha

tth e Stat

e did no t presen tperjured testimon

y throug h Jasmin Hernande

z regarding her stat

e o f sobriet y during th e event

s alleged i

n the Indictment. REASON FORREVIEW : Petitioner would show th e Cour

t tha t discretionar

y revie w shoul d b e grante d based upo n TEX . R . APP . PROC . 66.3(b ) and (c ) i n tha t th e Cour t o f Appeal s ha s written adecisio n i n conflict wit h th e Cour

t o f Crimina l Appeals ; E

x part e Chabot , 300 S.W.3 d 76 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2009) ; E x part e Napper . 32 2 S.W.3 d 20 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010) ; E x part e Ghahremani , 33 2 S.W.3 d 47 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 2011) , an d ha s decide d a

n importan t issu e tha t ha s not been settle d by th e Cour

t of Crimina l Appeals . ARGUMENT : O n origina l submission , the pane

l opinion of

the Cour

t o f Appeal s held tha

t Petitioner' s Poin

t of Erro r V , complaining o f

the knowing us e o f

perjure d testimon

y b y the Stat e i n orde r t o obtain the Petitioner' s conviction , wa s not error . A s stated by th e court , Jasmin Hernandez "though

t sh e wa s not intoxicated a

t the part y an d .. . (the ) Stat e though t sh e wa s "drunk " whe

n sh e wrot e astatemen

t .. . (were )

PETITIO NFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 1 9

### inconsistencie s tha t do not creat e afals e impression o f

sobriet y t o the jury. " A s the Cour

t pointed out , Jasmin Hernande z testified tha

t sh e ha d "mayb e 2 cups " o f

apunch wit

h alcohol an

d ashot o f vodk aa t th e part y (R.R.I V 42) ; an d tha t she ha d a"hig h toleranc e fo

r alcohol " an

d di d not thin k she wa s intoxicated . (R.R.I V 82-83) . Sh

e told th e nurs e performin g the sexua

l assault examine tha

t she did not

hav e anything t

o drin k withi n the las t twelv e hours . (R.R.I

V 74) . I n th e fac e o f thi s testimon

y presented by th e Stat

e through the complaint , Jasmin Hernandez , the prosecuto r wh o presente d th e testimony , stated tha

t he r numerou s inconsistencie s betwee n he r tria l testimon y an d writte n statemen

t wer e becaus e sh

e wa s "drun

k whe n she wrot e the statement. " (R.R.I

V 44) . The requiremen

t o f testimon y i n orde r t o constitut e aviolatio n o f du e proces s unde

r federa l law , i s tha

t th e Stat e mus t knowingl y us e fals e testimon y E x part e Chabot . 300 S.W.3 d 76 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2009) ; E x part e Napper . 32 2 S.W.3 d 20 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010) . Th e ter m"perjury " i s thi s context require s proo f

tha t th e testimony "give s th e trier afac t afals e impression, " bu

t i t doe s no t requir e proo f o f

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W -2 0

### element s o f "perjury " a s tha

t ter mi s defined i

n th e Pena

l Code . E

x parte Ghahremani , 33 2 S.W.3 d 47 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 2011) . The Cour t dismisse s th e inconsistenc y between th e knowledg e o f th e prosecuto r

presentin g the testimon

y an d th e testimony o f Jasmi n Hernande z b y statin g tha t the us e o f th e testimony tha

t she wa s no t intoxicate d an

d th e State' s knowledg e tha t she wa s "drunk " whe

n she wrot e th e statemen

t doe s not creat e afals e impressio n o f

sobriet y t o th e jury . I

t i s impossibl e to sa

y tha t the victim' s ow

n testimony tha

t sh e wa s not

intoxicate d whe

n th e Stat e kne w tha t she wa s intoxicate d doe s not create afals e impressio n t o th e jury . PRAYER WHEREFORE , PREMISE S CONSIDERED , Petitioner pray s tha t thi s Petitio n fo r Discretionar

y Review b e i

n all thing s GRANTED . Respectfull

y submitted , /s/WILLIA

M A . BRATTO

N H I WILLIA M A . BRATTO

N II I 282 8 Routh , Suit

e 675-LB1 0 Dallas , Texa s 7520 1 (214)871-113 3 (214 ) 871-0620 fa

x Stat e Ba r No . 02916300 Emai l - bill@brattonlaw.co m ATTORNE

Y FO RPETITIONER (O N APPEAL ONLY)

PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 2 1

### CERTIFICA TE OFSER VICE

I hereby certif

y tha t atru e an d correct cop y o f the abov e an

d foregoin g Petitio n fo r Discretionar

y Revie w wa s delivered t

o th e District

Attorne y of McLenna n County , Texas , an

d Unite d State s Mai

l t o th e Stat e Prosecuting Attorney , Austin , Texas , o

n thi s th e 1 S T 

### da

y of July , 2015 . Zs/WILLIA

M A . BRATTO

N II I WILLIA M A . BRATTO

N III ATTORNE

Y FO RPETITIONER (O N APPEAL ONLY)

PETITIONFOR DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 2 2

### APPENDI X " A

PETITIO NFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W -2 3I N TH E TENT H COUR T O F APPEAL S No . 10-14-00112-C R TEVI N SHERAR D ELLIOTT , Appellan t v . TH E STATE O F TEXAS , Appelle e

Fro m th e 54th Distric tCour t McLenna n County , Texa s Tria l CourtNo . 2012-1543-C 2 MEMORANDU M OPINIO N Tevin Sherard Elliot

t wa s acolleg e football player . H e attende dafriend' s part y a t th e clubhous e o

f a n apartmen t

complex . Jasmi n Hernande z attende d th e same part y wit h som e o f he r friends . Sh e me t

Elliot t fo r th e firs t tim e a t th e party . Afte

r socializin g an d havin g afe

w drink s wit

h he r friends , Jasmi n wen t

t o th e bathrootn . Whe n sh e returned , sh e coul dno t

fin d he r friends . Elliot

t offered t o hel p he r

find the man d le d he r ou t th e back doo r o f th e clubhous e t o th e poo l an d recreational are ao f th e complex . Jasmin protested . Elliot

t carrie d Jasmi n t o amudd y slop e wher e Elliot t sexuall yassaulte dher . Afte r puttin g thei r

clothe s bac k

on , Elliot t

carrie dJasmi n t o anothe r par t o f th e recreationa l are aan d sexuall y assaulte dhe r again . Afterwards , Jasmi n foun d he r friend s and , crying , tol d the mwha t happened . Sh e wa s take n t o th e hospita l wher e sh e gav e astatemen t

abou t wha t happene d an d ha d asexua l assaul t examination . Elliot t asserte d tha t

th e sexua l conduc t

wa s consensual . Afte r ajur y trial , Elliot t

wa s convicte d of

tw o count s of

sexua l assault . See TEX . PENA L COD E ANN . § 22.01 1 (Wes t 2011) . Becaus e w e overrul e eac h of Elliott' s issue s o n appeal , th e tria l court' s judgment s ar e affirmed . SUFFICIENC Y O F INDICTMEN T I n hi s firs t

issue , Elliot t

assert s tha t

th e indictmen t

wa s faciall y insufficien t becaus e i t

faile dt o alleg e wit h particularit y th e manne r an d mean s fo r

th e lac k o f consen t o f th e complainant . Specifically , h e contend s h e wa s no t prpperl y advise d whic h o f th e 1 1 way s i n whic h asexua l assaul t ca n occu r

withou t th e victim' s consent . Texa s la w require s th e defendan t t o objec t t o an y allege derro r

i n jth e indictmen t j befor e th e da y o

f tria l an d certainl y befor e th e jur y i s empaneled . Teal v. State, 23 0 S.W.3 d 172,17 7 (Tex . Crim . App . 2007) . Th e relevan t statut e provides : (b ) I f th e defendan t

doe s no t

objec t t o adefect , error , o r

irregularit y of formo r substanc e i n a n indictmen t o r informatio n befor e th e dat e o n whic h th e tria l o n th e merit s commences , h e waive s an d forfeit s th e righ t t o objec t t o th e defect , error , o r irregularit y an d h e ma y no t rais e th e objectio n o n appea l o r

i n an y othe r

postconvictio n proceeding . Nothin g i n thi s articl e prohibit s atria l cour t fro mrequirin g tha t

a n objectio n t o a n indictmen t

o r informatio n b e mad e a t a n earlie r

tim e i n complianc e wit h Articl e 28.0 1 of

thi s code . Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 2TEX . COD E CRIM . PROC . art . 1.1 4 (Wes t 2005) . Elliot t di d no t objec t t o th e sufficienc y o

f th e indictmen t

prio r t o th e da y of

trial . H e raise s thi s issu e fo r

th e firs t tim e o n appeal . However , w e stil l nee d t o determin e whethe r th e indictmen t

i s constitutionall y sufficien t befor e applyin g th e waive r doctrin e se t

ou t i n th e statute . Teal

v. State, 23 0 S.W.3 d 172 , 180-8 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 2007) . Th e questio n t o b e aske d is : Ca n th e distric t cour t an dth e defendan t

determine , fro mth e fac e o

f th e indictment , tha t

th e indictmen t

intend s t o charg e afelon y o r othe r i offens e fo r

whic h adistric t

cour t ha s jurisdiction ? Id. a t

180 . I f so , adefendan t

mus t j mak e apretria l objectio n t o asubstantiv e defec t i n th e informatio n or | indictmen t o r forfei t th e right t o complai n abou t

i t o n appeal . Smith v. State, 30 9 S.W.3 d 10,1 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010) . J Here , Elliot

t wa s charge d i n th e indictmen t wit h tw o count s o

f sexua l assault , bot h allegin g tha t

o n Apri l 15 , 2012 , Elliot t "intentionall y o r

knowingly " cause d th e

i penetratio n o

f th e sexua l orga n of

Jan e Doe, 1 b y Elliott' s sexua l organ , withou t Jan e Doe' s consent . I t

i s clear tha t th e indictmen t

intende dt o charg e Elliott wit h sexua l assault . Sexua l assaul t

i s afelon y an dal l of

th e necessar y element s wer e pled . Pleadin g th e manne r

an d mean s of

vitiatin g consen t

ar e no t necessar y element s of

sexua l assault . See Moss v. State, No . 07-12-00067-CR , 201 3 Tex . App . LEXI S 9715 , 9 (Tex . App.

-

1 Jan e Do e wa s th e pseudony mfo r th e complainant , Jasmi n Hernandez , whic h wa s use d i n th e indictment . Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 3Amarill o Aug . 2 , 2013 , pet . ref'd ) (no t designate dfo r

publication) . Th e tria l cour t an d defendan t coul d conclud e tha t

th e indictmen t

charge dafelon y and ; th e cour t ha d jurisdictio n o

f tha t offense . Accordingly , t o preserv e thi s issu e fo r appellat e review , Elliot t neede d t o objec t

t o th e indictmen t

prio r t o th e da y o

f trial . Becaus e h e di d not , hi s complain t

o n appea l i s waived ; an dhi s firs t issu e i s overruled . j CHALLENG E T O VENIR E MEMBE R Elliott nex t contend s tha t

th e tria l cour t

erre di n refusin g to , excus e venir e membe r 1 4 fo r caus e du e t o tha t

venir e member' s inabilit y t o follo w th e law . A defendan t

ma y challeng e apotentia l juro r fo r caus e i f h £ i s biase d o r prejudice d agains t

th e defendan t

o r th e la w o n whic h th e Stat e o r defendan t

i s entitle d t o rely . Comeaux

v. State, 44 5 S.W.3 d745 , 74 9 (Tex . Crim . App . 2014) ; Gardner v. State, i 30 6 S.W.3 d 274 , 29 5 (Tex . Crim . App . 2009) . Elliott doe s no t poin t t o an y plac e i n th e recor d wher e h e mad e achalleng e t o venir e membe r 14 . An dw e hay e no t

foun d a challeng e i n th e recor d either . Althoug h t o establis h harm fo r a n erroneou s denia l of

a challeng e fo r

cause , th e defendan t

mus t sho w o n th e recor dthat : (1 ) h e asserte daclear an d specifi c challenge fo r cause ; (2 ) h e use daperemptor y challeng e o n th e complained

o f venir e member ; (3 ) hi s peremptor y challenge s wer e exhausted ; (4 ) hi s reques t fo r additiona l strike s wa s denied ; an d (5 ) a n objectionabl e juro r sa t o n th e jury , see Comeaux, 44 5 S.W.3 d a t

749 ; Davis v. State, 32 9 S.W.3 d798 , 80 7 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010) , whe n n o challeng e a t

al l i s mad e t o ajuror , th e issu e of whethe r th e juro r

i s challengeabl e fo r Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e4caus e ha s no t bee n preserved . See TEX . R . APP . P . 33.1 . Elliot t doe s no t argu e tha t

th e tria l cour t shoul d have , sua sponte, excuse dth e venir e member . See Warren v. State, 76 8 S.W.2d 300 , 30 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 1989 ) ("I t i s wel l settle dtha t

atria l judg e shoul d no t

i o n hi s ow n motio n excus e aprospectiv e juro r fo r caus e unles s th e juro r

i s absolutel y disqualifie d fro mservin g o n th e jury.") . Regardles s of

whethe r o r no t th e venir e membe r

wa s challengejabl e fo r

cause , i Elliot t di d no t challeng e venir e membe r 1 4 fo r caus e a t all , an dhi s complain t

o n appea l i s no t preserved . Elliott' s secon d issu e i s overruled . PERJURE D TESTIMON Y I n hi s fift h issue , Elliot t

assert s tha t

hi s du e proces s right s unde r th e Fourteent h Amendmen t

t o th e Unite d State s Constitutio n wer e violate d b y th e State' s knowin g us e o f perjure d testimony . Elliott allege s tha t

th e Stat e knowingl y presente dperjure d testimon y regardin g Jasmin' s leve l of intoxicatio n th e nigh t

o f th e assaults . T o constitut e aviolatio n of du e proces s unde r

Federa l precedent , th e Stat e mus t knowingl y us e fals e testimony . Ex parte Ghahremani, 33 2 S.W.3 d 470 , 47 8 (Tex . Crim . i App . 2011) . Ther e i s n o requiremen t tha t th e offendin g testimon y b e "criminall y perjurious; " i t

i s sufficien t

i f th e witness' s testimon y give s th e trie r of fac t afals e impression . Id. a t

477 . Th e appellan t

bear s th e burde n o

f showin g tha t

th e testimon y use d b y th e Stat e was , i n fact , perjured . Losada v. State, 72 1 S.W.2 d 305 , 31 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 1986) . Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e5Th e knowin g us e of fals e testimon y violate s du e proces s whe n ther e i s a "reasonabl e likelihood " tha t th e fals e testimon y affecte d th e outcome . Id. a t 478 . I n othe r words , th e fals e testimon y mus t hav e bee n material . Id. A findin g o f materialit y obviate s th e nee d t o conduc t aseparat e harmles s erro r analysi s o n direc t

appeal . Ex parte Fierro, 93 4 S.W.2 d 370,37 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 1996) . Trial Testimony Jasmi n testifie d tha t

sh e socialize da t

th e part y an dha d"mayb e tw o cups " o f a punc h wit h alcoho l i n it . Sh e state dtha t sh e ha dasho t

of vodk aa t

th e part y a s well . Further , sh e state d tha t

sh e ha d ahig h toleranc e fo r alcoho l an ddi dno t

thin k sh e wa s intoxicate d a t

th e party . Th e Stat e qualifie dhe r statemen t

b y askin g if

sh e wa s s o

i intoxicate d sh e coul d no t walk . Jasmi n replie dtha t sh e coul dwalk . Th e office r wh o initiall y responde d t o th e hospita l di dno t thin k Jasmi n wa s intoxicated. 2 Th e nurs e wh o performe d th e sexua l assaul t exa mo n Jasmi n severa l hour s later'di dno t recal l noticin g asmel l of

alcoho l o n Jasmin . Th e nurs e noted , however , tha t whe n sh e aske d Jasmin e i f sh e ha d anythin g alcoholi c t o drin k withi n th e las t

1 2 hours , Jasmin e replie d sh e ha d not . O n cross-examination , Jasmi n state dsh e di dno t recal l tellin g th e office

r t o who m sh e gav e astatemen t

tha t sh e ha d thre e cup s of

punc h an dtw o shot s of vodka . Jasmi n als o di d no t

recal l tellin g th e nurs e tha t sh e ha dno t

ha danythin g t o drin k

i n th e las t 2 Thi s office

r wa s no t th e office r wh o too k

Jasmin' s statement . Th e office r wh o too k

th e statemen t

wa s no t aske d whethe r

h e though t

Jasmi n wa s intoxicated . Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 6twelv e hours . Sh e though t sh e ha d tol dth e nurs e tha t sh e ha d drari k

a n alcoholi c beverag e withi n 1 2 hour s prio r t o th e exam . Motion for

New Trial A t th e hearin g o n th e motio n fo r ne w trial , on e o

f th e prosecutor s wa s calle d t o testif y an d wa s questione d abou t wh y th e Stat e di dno t

le t tria l counse l kiio w ther e wa s a3 0 minut e ga p i n th e apartmen t comple x surveillanc e vide o provide dt o th e defense . Th e prosecuto r

explaine d tha t

sh e di dno t

notic e th e ga p unti l i t

wa s (pointe d ou t

i n Elliott' s motio n fo r

ne w trial . Sh e als o explaine dtha t sh e di dno t

thiii k th e missin g i I portion , whic h potentiall y wa s o f th e poo l area , wa s relevan t becaus e base do n wha t Jasmi n ha d tol d her , i t

woul d no t

hav e show n eithe r

of th e sexua l assaults . Whe n confronte d wit h Jasmin' s statemen t t o polic e tha t

sh e wa s carrie dt o th e poo l are awher e i sh e wa s agai n sexuall y assaulted , th e prosecuto r replie dtha t

sh e read , th e statemen t after talkin g t o Jasmi n an d di d no t thin k i t wa s inconsisten t

wit h Jasmin' s allegatio n tha t th e secon d ac t

occurre d agains t

afence . Th e prosecuto r stil l di dno t

believ e th e i missin g vide o woul d sho w th e secon dact . O n re-direct , th e prosecuto r explaine dtha t wha t wa s relevan t

t o he r wa s th e totalit y o

f th e evidence , no t

jus t th e surVeillanc e video . Whe n Elliot f

s counse l note d tha t

Jasmin e ha d"sai dalo t o f things " i n he r

statement , th e prosecuto r

responded , "Well , sh e wa s als o drun k whe n sh e wrot e tha t

statement. " Application Thi s las t statemen t

b y th e prosecuto r

i s wha t Elliott relie s o n t o asser t

tha t th e Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 7Stat e knowingl y presente d perjure dtestimony . W e disagree . Clearly , Jasmi n ha d bee n

drinkin g a t

th e party . N o on e testifie dotherwise . Sh e ha dtw o o r thre e cup s of

a n alcoholi c punc h an d on e o r tw o shot s of

vodka . Tha t

Jasmi n though t

sh e wa s no t intoxicate d a t

th e part y an d th e Stat e though t sh e wa s "drunk" 3 whe n sh e wrot e a statemen t wit h inconsistencie s doe s no t creat e afals e impressio n o f sobriet y t o th e jury . Elliott' s fift

h issu e i s overruled . PRESERVATIO N O FCOMPLAINT S B y hi s thir d issue , Elliot t argue s th e tria l cour t

erre d i n allowin g th e Stat e t o reope n voi r

dir e a t th e conclusio n of

Elliott' s counsel' s voi r

dir e examination . Elliot t cite s n o authorit y fo r

th e propositio n tha t

th e Stat e canno t

reope n voi r

dire . Thus , thi s issu e i s improperl y briefe d an d present s nothin g fo r review . See TEX . R.APP . P . 38.1(i) ; Cardenas v. State, 3 0 S.W.3 d 384 , 39 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2000) . Regardless , ther e wa s n o objectio n t o th e State' s action . Accordingly , error , i f any , i s no t

preserved . TEX . R . APP . P . 33.1 . Elliott' s thir d issu e i s overruled . Elliot t contend s i n hi s fourt h issu e tha t th e tria l cour t

erre di n limitin g Elliott' s cross-examinatio n o

f awitnes s i n violatio n o f Elliott' s Fifth , Sixth , an dFourteent h Amendmen t

rights . Specifically , Elliot t contend s h e wa s no t

permitte dt o cross-examin e th e witnes s regardin g aprio r statemen t

sh e ha dmade . Ther e i s nothin g i n th e recor d tha t indicate s th e tria l cour t woul d no t

allo w counse l t o cross-examin e th e witnes s

3 Ther e wa s n o explanatio n a s t o wha t th e prosecuto r

mean t b y "drunk. " Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 8regardin g th e statement . Ther e wer e tw o discussion s i n chamber s an d of f th e recor d bu t w e d o no t

kno w wha t

occurre d durin g thos e discussions . Further , n o offe r of proo f wa s made . Accordingly , thi s issu e i s no t preserved , an d Elliott' s fourt h issu e i s overruled . Se

e TEX . R . APP.P.33.1 . I n issue s six , seven , an d eight , Elliott assert s th e tria l cour t

erre di n allowin g th e rebutta l testimon y o

f thre e witnesses . Specifically , h e contend s tha t non e o f th e witnesses ' testimon y wa s sufficien t t o establis h a"modu s operandi " fo r extraneou s offense s pursuan t

t o Rul e 404(b ) of

th e Texa s Rule s of

Procedure . Howeiver , Elliott di d no t objec t t o th e testimon y of

an y of th e thre e witnesses . H e onl y objecte d t o th e Stat e questionin g Elliott

o n cross-examinatio n regardin g non-consensua l se x wit h eac h of th e i thre e witnesses . Elliot t doe s no t

complai n abou t

tha t testimon y o n appeal . Accordingly , Elliott' s complaint s abou t th e erroneou s admissio n o f th e thre e witnesses ' testimon y i s no t

preserved . TEX . R . APP . P . 33.1 . Hi s sixth , seventh , an d eight h issue s ar e overruled . I n hi s nint h issue , Elliot t complain s tha t

th e tria l cour t

erre d b y allowin g th e cross-examinatio n of

adefens e rebutta l witnes s regardin g aprio r ba d ac t o f Elliott . Elliott raise dn o objectio n t o th e questio n b y th e Stat e an d ha s preserve d nothin g fo r review . TEX.R . APP.P . 33.1 . Elliott' s nint h issu e i s overruled . I n hi s tent h issue , Elliot t contend s hi s Sixth Amendmen t righ t t o confron t

an d cross-examin e witnesse s wa s violate db y th e admissio n o f aforensi c DN A tes t

repor t Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 9throug h a n individua l wh o di d no t prepar e th e report . Elliot t di dno t objec t t o th e t admissio n o

f th e evidence ; thu s hi s Confrontatio n Claus e argumen t i s waived . See TEX . R . APP . P . 33.1(a) ; Paredes v. State, 12 9 S.W.3 d 530 , 53 5 (Tex . Crim . App . 2004 ) (tria l objectio n o n hearsa y ground s faile dt o preserv e erro r o n Confrontatio n Claus e grounds) ; Wright

v. State, 2 8 S.W.3 d 526 , 53 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 2000 ) (Confrontatio n Claus e argumen t

waive d b y failin g t o objec t o n tha t basis) . Elliott' s tent h issu e i s overruled . i INEFFECTIV E ASSISTANC E O F COUNSE L I n hi s final issue , Elliot t

argue s tha t

h e wa s denie dhi s Sixth Amendmen t righ t t o th e effectiv e assistanc e o f counse l a t

trial . Specifically , h e contend s tha t th e failur e t o cros s examin e Jasmi n b y th e us e of he r writte n statement , th e failur e t o exploi t aga p i n i i th e surveillanc e vide o a t th e apartmen t

complex , an dth e decisio n t o pu t Elliott o n th e stan d i n th e fac e o

f extraneou s offens e testimon y fro mthre e othe r female s allegin g sexuall y assaultiv e events , denie d Elliott o f hi s righ t

t o th e effective

^ assistanc e of counsel . I n orde r t o prevai l o n aclai mo f ineffectiv e assistanc e o f counsel , Elliott

mus t mee t th e two-pronge d tes t

establishe d b y th e Unite dState s Suprem e Cour t i n Strickland tha t (1 ) counsel' s representatio n fel l belo w a n objectiv e standar do f reasonableness , an d (2 ) th e deficien t

performanc e prejudice dth e defense . Strickland v. Washington, 46 6 U.S . 668 , 687,10 4 S . Ct . 2052 , 8 0 L . Ed . 2 d67 4 (1984) ; Lopez v. State, 34 3 S.W.3 d 137,14 2 (Tex . Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e1 0Crim . App . 2011) . Unles s adefendan t ca n prov e bot h prongs , a n appellat e cour t mus t i no t fin d counsel' s representatio n t o b e ineffective . Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 d a t 142 . I n orde r

t o satisf y th e firs t prong , Elliott

mus t prov e b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidenc e tha t

tria l counsel' s performanc e fel l belo w a n objectiv e standar dof reasonablenes s unde r

th e prevailin g professiona l norms . Id. T o prov e prejudice , Elliott mus t sho w tha t

ther e i s a reasonabl e probability , o r aprobabilit y sufficien t t o undermin e confidenc e i n th e outcome , tha t

th e resul t

o f th e proceedin g woul dhav e bee n different . Id. A n appellat e cour t

mus t mak e a"stron g presumptio n tha t counsel' s performanc e

i fel l withi n th e wid e rang e o f reasonabl y professiona l assistance. " Id. (quotin g Robertson v. State, 18 7 S.W.3 d 475 , 48 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2006)) . Claim s o f ineffectiv e assistanc e o

f i counse l ar e generall y no t successfu l o n direc t

appea l an dar e mor e appropriatel y urge d i n ahearin g o n a n applicatio n fo r awri t o f habea s corpus . Id. a t

14 3 (citin g Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3 d 828 , 83 3 n . 1 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2002)) . O n direc t appeal , th e recor di s usuall y inadequatel y develope d an d "canno t adequatel y reflec t

th e failing s of

tria l counsel " fo r

j a n appellat e cour t

"t o fairl y evaluat e th e merit s o f suc h aseriou s allegation. " Id. (quotin g Bone, 77

S.W.3 d a t

833) . Elliot t file d amotio n fo r

ne w tria l allegin g ineffectiv e assistanc e of counse l base d o n severa l grounds , includin g counsel' s failur e t o exploi t th e ga p i n th e vide o surveillanc e and , i n part , counsel' s decisio n t o hav e Elliott testify . W e revie w atria l judge' s denia l o f amotio n fo r

ne w tria l unde r

a n abus e o

f Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 1 1discretio n standard . Colyer v. State, 42 8 S.W.3 d117,12 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2014) ; Salazar v. State, 3 8 S.W.3 d 141,14 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2001) . "W e d o no t substitut e ou r

judgmen t fo r tha t of th e tria l court ; rather , w e decid e whethe r th e tria l court' s decisio n wa s arbitrar y o r

unreasonable. " Holden v. State, 20 1 S.W.3 d761 , 76 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2006) . A tria l judg e abuse s hi s discretio n i n denyin g amotio n fo r ne w tria l whe n n o reasonabl e vie w o

f th e recor d coul d suppor t hi s ruling . Colyer, 42 8 S.W.3 da t 122 ;

t Holden, 20 1 S.W.3 d a t

763 . W e vie w th e evidenc e i n th e ligh t mos t favorabl e t o th e tria l judge' s rulin g an d presum e tha t al l reasonabl e factua l finding s tha t coul dhav e bee n mad e agains t

th e losin g part y wer e mad e agains t tha t losin g party . Colyer, 42 8 S.W.3 d a t 122 ; Quinn v. State, 95 8 S.W.2 d 395,40 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 1997) . A t amotio n fo r

ne w tria l hearing , th e judg e alon e determine s th e credibilit y o f th e witnesses . Colyer, 42 8 S.W.3 d a t 122 ; Salazar, 3 8 S.W.3 da t 148 . Eve n i

f th e testimon y i s no t controverte d o r

subjec t t o cross-examination , th e tria l judg e ha s discretio n t o disbeliev e tha t

testimony . Colyer, 42 8 S.W.3 da t 122 ; Masterson v. State, 15 5 S.W.3 d 167 , 17 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 2005) . Video Gap Th e testimon y a t

th e motio n fo r

ne w tria l centere do n th e Stat e failin g t o notic e an d infor mElliott' s tria l counse l o f th e 3 0 minut e "gap " i n th e surveillanc e vide o fro m th e apartmen t

complex , no t

a s t o ho w tria l counse l coul dhav e use dth e "gap " t o Elliott' s benefit . Elliott

onl y argue da t

th e hearin g o n th e motio n fo r ne w trial , tha t Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 1 2becaus e Jasmine' s statemen t indicate dsh e an dElliot t ha dse x i n th e poo l area , th e ga p i n th e video , allegedl y of th e poo l area , woul db e relevan t t o whethe r

th e sexua l i encounte r wa s consensua l an d tha t th e defens e coul dhav e argue dwh y wa s tha t

t j portio n o f th e vide o no t

there . Elliott ha s th e burde n t o prov e tha t hi s counse l wa s ineffective . Ther e wa s nothin g presente d a t

th e hearin g o n th e motio n fo r ne w tria l t o sugges f

tha t counsel' s representatio n fel l belo w a n objectiv e standar do f reasonablenes s unde r

th e prevailin g professiona l norm s o r

tha t ther e wa s areasonabl e probabilit y tha t th e resul t

o f th e tria l woul d hav e bee n differen t bu t fo r tria l counsel' s failur e t o expos e o r exploi t th e ga p i n th e video . Althoug h Elliot t testifie d a t

th e hearin g tha t

counse l neve r

informe dhi mof th e gap , neithe r

th e Stat e no r

tria l counse l though t

th e vide o wa s ver y important . Th e ^ ^ Stat e di d no t

notic e th e ga p unti l i t

wa s pointe dou t

i n Elliott' s motio n fdr

ne w trial . I t di d no t thin k th e vide o wa s ver y important . B y affidavit , tria l counse l fo r Elliott state d tha t after viewin g th e vide o fo r

trial , h e di dno t

fin danythin g t o contradic t Jasmin' s testimon y o r

tha t woul d b e beneficia l fo r

th e defense . Elliot t neve r dispute d tha t

h e an dJasmin e ha dsex . H e dispute dwhethe r th e i encounte r wa s withou t

consent . Thus , th e tria l cour t coul dhav e believe dtria l counsel' s affidavi t an d determine d th e missin g portio n o f th e surveillance , woul dno t b e beneficial t o th e defensiv e strategy . Accordingly , th e tria l cour t di dno t abus e it s discretio n i n denyin g Elliott' s motio n fo r ne w tria l o n thi s groun dfo r ineffectiv e Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 1 3assistanc e of counsel . Decision to Testify Tria l counse l testifie d b y affidavi t tha t h e an dElliot t

ha ddiscusse dth e pro s an d con s o f Elliott testifyin g a t

trial . The y wer e awar e of th e extraneou s offense s an d ha d

i bee n furnishe d copie s o f

thos e offens e reports . The y kne w tha t i f Elliot t testified , thos e additiona l allegation s woul d b e introduced . The y als o discusse dtha t th e defens e of

th e cas e wa s consent . The y ha d determine dth e cas e t o b e a"sh e said , h e said " situatio n an d tha t Elliot t woul d hav e t o testif

y t o tel l hi s versio n tha t

th e sexua l act s wer e consensual . Tria l counse l als o testifie d tha t Elliott wa s awar e of

th e danger s an drisks o f testifyin g an d als o th e possibl e benefit s o f testifying . I t

wa s counsel' s tria l strateg y tha t th e jur y hea r Elliott' s version . Elliot t

wa s als o awar e o

f hi s righ t t o remai n silent . Counse l an d Elliot t ha d discusse d tha t

testifyin g woul db e atria l tim e decision , dependin g o n ho w th e tria l an d evidenc e wa s going . Elliott testifie d a t

th e hearin g o n th e motio n fo r ne w tria l tha t

h e wa s neve r prepare d t o testif

y an d tha t

counse l "jus t

pu t m e u p there. " Becaus e th e tria l cour t

i s th e sol e judg e o

f th e credibilit y o

f th e witnesses , h e coul d hav e disbelieve d Elliot t an d believe dtria l counsel' s testimony . Further , base d o n counsel' s affidavit , th e tria l cour t coul dhav e reasonabl y determine dtha t th e decisio n t o hav e Elliott

testif y wa s tria l strategy . Accordingly , th e tria l cour t di dno t abus e it s discretio n i n denyin g Elliott' s motio n fo r ne w tria l o n thi s groun dfo r ineffectiv e Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 1 4assistanc e o

f counsel . Failure to Cross Examine Elliott' s othe r

groun d fo r

ineffectiv e assistanc e o

f counse l raise do n appeal , tha t counse l faile d t o cros s examin e Jasmin e wit h he r prio r statement , wa s nb t

raise di n th e motio n fo r

ne w trial . Consequently , th e recor di s inadequatel y develope dan dcanno t adequatel y reflec t

th e allege d failing s of

tria l counsel . Other Grounds Elliott doe s no t discus s o n appea l th e othe r ground s allege di n hi s motio n fo r ne w tria l a s evidencin g ineffectiv e assistanc e o f counsel . Thus , w e conclud e th e recor d i s insufficien t

t o establis h tha t

counsel' s representatio n fel l belo w a n objectiv e standar d o f reasonableness . An d t o th e exten t Elliott argue s tha t

du e t o th e othe r

issue s presente d i n thi s appeal , hi s counse l wa s ineffective , again , th e recor di $ inadequatel y develope d an d canno t

adequatel y reflec t

th e allege dfailing s o f

tria l counsel . Thus , w e canno t sa y tha t counse l wa s ineffectiv e o n thes e grounds . Elliott' s elevent h issu e i s overruled . CONCLUSIO N Havin g overrule d eac h issu e o n appeal , w e affir mth e tria l court' s judgments . TO M GRA

Y Chie f Justic e

Elliot t v . Stat e Pag e 1 5Befor

e Chie f Justic e Gray , Justic e Davis , an d Justic e Scoggin s Affirme d Opinio n delivere d an d filed Apri l 23,201 5 D o no t publis h [CR25 ]

Elliot tv . Stat e

### APPENDI X " B

PETITIO NFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 2 4

### I N TH E TENT H COUR T O F APPEAL S No . 10-14-00112-C R TEVI N SHERAR D ELLIOTT , Appellan t v . TH E STAT E O F TEXAS , Appelle e

Fro mth e 54t h Distric t

Cour t McLenna n County , Texa s Tria l Cour t

No . 2012-1543-C 2 ORDE R Tevi n Sherar d Elliott' s motio n fo r rehearin g i s denied . TO M GRA

Y Chie f Justic e Befor e Chief Justic e Gray , Justic e Davis , an d Justic e Scoggin s Motio n denie d Orde r issue dan d file d Ma y 28 , 201 5CERTIFICAT E O F COMPLIANC E

A t th e reques t

o f th e Court , I certif

y tha t thi s submitte d compute r C D complie s with th e followin g request s o f th e Court : (1 ) Thi s filing i s labele d with o r accompanie d b y th e followin g information : a . Cas e Style : Tevi n Sherar d Elliottv . Stat e o f Texa s b . Cas e Number : ; COA #10-14-00129-C R c . Th e Typ e o f

Brief: Petitio n fo r Discretionar y Revie w d . Th e Wor d Processin g Softwar e an d Versio n Use d t o prepar e th e filing: pdf - Microsof

tOffic e Wor d 201 0 e . Thi s documen t

contain s 4.44 0 number s o f words . 2 . Thi s C D contain s onl y an electroni c cop y o f th e origina l documen t

whic h wa s filed i n th e Tenth Court o f Appeal s Clerk' s offic e an d doe s no t contai n an y documen t

o r portio n thereo f

that i s no t include d i n th e origina l filing , excep t for hyperlink s t o document s that coul d b e include d in an appendi x bu t wer e to o voluminou s o r

impracticabl e t o b e attache d t o th e har d copy . 3 . Th e electroni c filin g i s free o f viruses , spyware , adware , rootkits , o r an y othe r similar dat ao r files tha t woul d b e disruptiv e t o th e Court' s compute r system . Th e followin g software , i f any , wa s use d t o ensur e th e filin g i s i n compliance : Norto n Antiviru s 4. 1 understan d th e submissio n o f a brie f i n electroni c forma ti s no t considere d a filin g i n thi s Court . Al l eBrief s submitte d mus thav e bee n previousl y file d i n printe d for m i n complianc e wit h th e Texa s Rule s o f Appellat e Procedure . /s/WILLIA M A . BRATTO N II I WILLIA M A . BRATTO N II I 282 8 Routh St . Ste . 675-LB1 0 Dallas , Texa s 7520 1 Off : 214-871-113 3 /Fax : 214-871-062 0 Ba r No . 0291630 0 PETITIONFO R DISCRETIONAR Y REVIE W - 2 5