### NUM BER 13-08- 0051 9-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
BR IA N ROB ERTK OTA RA , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 19t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A p p e l l a n t , B ri an Rober tK o t a r a , w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l to f a chi ld, a first- deg re e felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i ), ( a) (2 )( B) , ( e) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). T he trial court senten ced him to tw ent y -f iv e y ears’ conf inem ent in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. By four is sues on appeal , Ko tara c ontends that : (1 ) the t ri al cour t erred byf ail ing to ensure that Kotar a w as p re s e n ta tt h e h e a ri n g o n h is m o t io n s f o r n e w tr ia l; (2 ) h e wa s a f fo rd e d in e f

fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel bec ause he “ente re d a ple a of gui lt y under the misc oncep ti on th at he w a s l i k e l y

t o r e c e i v e p r o b a t i o n o r c o mm u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n ” ; ( 3 ) h e w a s a fforded inef fective assistance of

coun sel beca use “he w as ne v er informed o f t he State ’s w illing ness to en ter into a plea ba rg ain for a sent ence o f t en years”; and (4) “[i]ncreasin g the State ’sT h e i n d i c tm e n t a l l e g e d s p e c i fic a l l y th a t: 1 B R IA N R O B E R T K O T A R A , d e f e n d a n t, o n o r a b o u t J U N E 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , in N u e c e s C o u n ty, T exas, di d t hen and t her e i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y cause t he p enet r at i on o ft he se xual or gan o f [T .S .], a fe m a l e c h i l d y o u n g e r th a n 1 4 y e a rs o f a g e a n d n o t t h e s p o u s e o f th e d e fe n d a n t, by t he d ef endan t ’ s f i nger , aga i nst t he p eace and di gni t y of t he St at e. 2 recommended puni shmentfrom 10 y ears t o 25 y ears, w it h no further j ust ific ati on,
c on s ti tu te d pros ec ut or i al mi s c on du c t. ” W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND A N ueces C ounty

g ra nd j ur

y i ndi ct e d K otara on Aug ust16, 2007. Ata he ar ing 1 b e f o re the tr ial co urt on Janua ry 14, 2008, Kotara ent er ed an “o pen” g uil ty pl ea to the charg ed offense, and the tr ial cour t cer ti fied Kotara’s ri g ht to appeal

. A s entenc ing hear ing
w as h e l d o n J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a t w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u rt p r o n o u n c e d K o t a r a ’ s s e n t ence of tw enty -fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonment

. On J uly 8, 2008, Kotara’s appel lat e c ounse l filed a moti on for new tr ial w it h the tr ial
cour t, compl ain ing thatKot ar a’s p rior t ri al couns el prov ide d i neff ect iv e as si sta nce. The
mo tion sp ecif ically

alleged tha t Kot ara’s trial co unse l f ailed to: (1) call Kotara’s th erap ist
or ps y chol og is t t o presentmit ig ati on ev ide nce; (2 ) neg oti ate a “ spec ificpl ea or ca p” w it h the State ; (3) advise Kot ara that he was not eligible fo r court-ordered proba tion; (4) adv ise Kotara tha t a jur

y w oul d hav e been author iz ed to g ra nt probati on; ( 5) “ ex plo itthe fact th at the c omplai nant ini ti all y l ied about the ci rc umstan ces of the i nci dent” ; and ( 6) “ inv est ig ate t h e s e x u a l p r o mi s c u i t y o f t h e c o mp l a i n a n t w h i c h ma y h a v e [ a ] ffe c t e d t he l eng th of sent ence .” The July

8, 200 8 mo tion a lso cont end ed t h a t “ a 2 5 ye ar sente nce for a f irst ti me off ense of fondl ing a s ex ual ly ac ti v e tee nag er

w as uncon sc ion abl e and ex ces si v e.” On J uly 11, 2008, Kotara’s appel lat e c ounse l filed an a ddi ti onal moti on ent it led “M oti on for New

Tri al / M oti on for Reh ear ing .” Thi s s econd moti on not e d t h a t, a t the
se n te n cin g he a rin g on Ja n u a ry 12 , 2 0 0 8 , “s o m e evid e n c e w a s en te re d rega rd in g a col later a l felony

se x ual as saul t [ charg e ag ain st Kotara] t hat w as pendi ng i n Kar nes Coun ty,” and that “[n]ew evidence h as just bee n obt aine d consistin g of an orde r fo rmallyAl t hough no bench war r ant appea r s i n t he r ecor d bef or e us, we not e t hat Kot ar a’ s app el l at e cou nsel 2 al so st at ed a t t he Augu st 25, 200 8 hear i ng t hat t he t r i al cour t had i n f act si gned a be nch war r ant sum m oni ng K otara t o a pp ea r. 3 dis mis si ng ” that charg e. A hear ing w as hel d on Kotara’s moti ons fo r n e w tr ial on A ug ust25, 2008. At the hear ing , t he St ate’ s a tto rn e y n o ted t hat t he tr ial co urt had si g ned a bench w ar ra nt summoni ng Kotara to be pr esent at that ti me, but that the b ench w ar ra nt w as not e x ecut ed and Ko tara w as not pres ent. Nev erthel ess , Kotar a’s appell ate attor ney , w ho repr esent ed 2 Kot ara at th e hea ring, indicat ed that he w as w illing to proce ed d espite his client’s abse nce be c au s e Au g us t 25 , 20 08 w as t he s ev en ty

- fi fth d ay fol l ow i ng t he i mp os i ti on o f Kota ra’s sent ence. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21. 8(a) (“The court must r ule on a mo tion fo r new trial w ithin 75 d ays af

ter imp osing or suspen ding sente nce in op en co urt.”). The on l y

w i t n e s s t o t e s t i fy

a tt h e A u g u s t2 5 , 2 0 0 8 h e a r i n g w a s K o t a r a ’ s w i fe, Jenni fer. W hen as ked by Kot ar a’s co unsel w h e ther “ y ou w er e i nv olv ed w it h the
conv ersat ion s w it h the [pri or] attor ney ,” Je nni fer repl ied i n the aff ir mati v e. Jenni fer furt her te st if ie d that Kot ar a’s pr ior att or ney di d not : (1 ) tal k w it h Kot ar a aboutw hether he w as eligible fo r probat ion; (2) tell Kota ra t hat t he judge w as no t able to orde r probat ion; (3) tell Kotara that he w as not eli g ibl e for probati on unl ess the s entenc e w as ten y ears o r les s; (4 ) tel l Kotara tha t he h a d t h e o pti on to g o to the j ur y for p uni shmentand re q uestprobati on from the jur

y ; or ( 5) i nform Kot ar a tha t t he St ate h ad made an of fer for a pl ea ag re ement under w hic h Kotar a w oul d be sent enced to ten y ears’ i mpri sonment

. The tr ial co urt den ied the mot ion s for

new tr ial

. This appeal foll ow ed.

II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Prese nce atH eari ng o n Mo ti on for N ew T rial By his f irst issue, Kotara cont end s tha t the trial court “ erred i n failing to en sure” his pr esenc e at the Aug ust 25, 2008 hear ing on his moti ons for new tr ial

. Kotara arg ues that his pr esenc e at the h ear ing wa s neces sar y bec ause his tes ti mony “ needed to be develope d to est ablish rea sons for a lesser sent ence and issues of inef fective assistance4

of couns el. ” Article 33. 03 o f

the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure requires that in all prosec uti ons for feloni es, the acc used must be personal ly pr esentat tr ial , ex ceptw hen t he
acc used v olu ntar il y absen ts hims elf after pl eadi ng to the i ndi ctmentor i nformati on, o r after the j ur y has been sel ect ed. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt . 33. 03 ( Ver non 200 6) ; see Adanandu s v

. St ate , 866 S.W .2d 2 10, 2 17 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ; Hod ges v. State , 116 S.W .3d 289 , 296 (Tex. A pp. –Corpu s Ch risti 20 03, pet. ref ’d). The rig ht is enta iled w ithin
a defendant’ s ri g ht to confro nt w it ness es ag ain st him under the Uni ted S tates and Tex as Con sti tuti ons. Mi

ller v. Sta te , 692 S.W .2d 8 8, 90 ( T e x. Cri m. App. 1985) ; Hod ges , 116 S.W .3d a t 296 ; see U. S. C ON ST
. amend. V I; T EX
. C ON ST . ar t. I, § 10. The ri g ht extends to a hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial

. Coon s v. St ate , 7 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 198 8, pet. ref ’d). If w e f ind error und er article 33.0 3, w e mu st deter mine w het h e r the p re senc e of the appel lan t bea rs a reason abl y su bst anti al
re lat ion shi p to the oppor tuni ty to defend. Hod

ges , 116 S.W .3d a t 296 ; Bath v. State , 951 S.W .2d 11, 22 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 7, pe t. ref ’d). The r ig ht t o be pr esentunti l the j ur y has been selec ted cannotbe w aiv ed. Mi ller , 692 S. W .2d a t 91; Tr

acy v. St ate , 14 S.W .3d 820 , 826 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 00, pet. ref ’d). How ev er , a defendant may w aiv e hi s r ig ht t o be pr esentat a moti on for new tr ial

. Coo ns , 7 5 8 S. W .2 d a t 33 9 ( c i t i n g Phi ll ips v. Sta te , 163 Te x . Crim. 13, 2 88 S. W .2d 775 (1956 )). Reversal i s required o nly w here the def end ant desires to be p resen t at the hea ring and is d e n i e d t hat r ig ht. Id. (cit in g Jac ks on v . St ate , 379 S.W .2d 896 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 64); Lacy v. Sta te , 374 S.W .2d 244 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 63)). At t he hear ing on K otara’s moti ons for ne w tr ia l, hi s a ppel lat e c ounse l sta ted t hat he c hose to proceed w it hout his cl ien t’ s pr esenc e becau se a post ponement of t he hear ing
w oul d hav e caus ed the moti ons for new tr ial to be ov er ru led by

operati on of l aw
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.8( a) ; State v . G utier re z , 1 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 1 ( Te x
. A p p
. – C o r p u s C h ri sti 2004, no pet .)

. Al thoug h the is suanc e of t he bench w ar ra nt may be s ome ev ide nce thatU nder ar t i cl e 42

. 12 o ft he co de o fcr i m i nal proc ed ure , a def endan t adj udged gui l t y of agg r av at ed 3 s e x u a l a s s a u l t i s n o t e l i g i b l e fo r c o u rt-o rd e re d c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n
. T EX

. C OD E C R IM

. P ROC

. A NN

. ar t

. 42. 12, § 3g ( a) ( 1) ( E) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8)

. However , a def endan t t hat pl eads gui l t y or nol o con t ender e t o t hat off ense i s el i gi bl e f or def er r ed a dj udi cat i on co m m uni t y supe r v i si on i ft he t r i al cour t m akes a f i ndi ng i n op en co ur t t hat p l a c i n g th e d e fe n d a n t o n c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n i s i n th e b e s t i n te re s t o f th e vic ti m
. I d. art

. 42

. 12 , § 5 (a). 5 Kotara at one poi nt desi re d to be pr esent at the hear ing , the record does not cont ain any
ev ide nce as to w hy

the bench w ar ra nt w as not e x ecut ed, w hy the hear ing w as sc hedul ed
so c lo se to the s ev enty -fiv e- day deadl ine , or

w hy Kot ar a fail ed to appear at the h ear ing

. W ithou t any such evi den ce, w e cann ot say tha t Kot ara “w as de nied the ab ility to app ear”
a t t h e he a rin g. Se e C oons , 758 S.W .2d at 339 . Accordingly , w e f ind no error unde r article 33.03. Ko tara’s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. In ef

fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel— Vol un ta rin ess o f Plea Kot ara con ten ds by his secon d issue tha t his trial counse l w as inef fective becau se K o t a ra “e n t e re d a p le a o f gu il t y u n d e r t h e m is c o n c e p t i o n t h a th e wa s li k e ly t o re c e ive probati on or communi ty super v is ion .” Acc or din g to K otara, t he l ack of eff ect iv e c ounse l 3
re n d e re d h is gu il t y p le a in vo lu n t a ry. W hen a def end ant challen ges the v olun tarine ss of a plea ent ered upo n the advice of couns el, co ntendi ng thathi s c o u n sel w as ine ff ect iv e, “ the v olu ntar ine ss of the p lea depends on ( 1) w hether co unsel ’s adv ic e w as w it hin the r ang e of compet ence demanded of attor ney s i n c ri minal ca ses and if not, ( 2) w hether there is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , but for couns el’ s er ro rs , he w oul d not hav e ple aded g uil ty and w oul d hav e i nsi ste d on g oin g to t rial.” Ex par

te Moody , 991 S.W .2d 856 , 857 -58 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9); Ex par te Mo rr ow , 952 S.W .2d 530, 536 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1997)

. Onc e a d efendant has pl ed g uil ty and attes ted to the v olu ntar ine ss of hi s ple a, he bears a heavy burden at a subseq uent hear ing to demonst ra te a lac k o f v olu ntar ine ss
. Gar ci a v . St ate , 877 S. W .2 d 8 09, 8 12 (Te x
. App .–Corp us Christi 199 4, pet. ref ’d). Gen erally , a guilty plea is considered v olun tary if the defendant w as made full y aw ar e of the directco nseq uence s. State v . J im enez , 987 S. W .2 d 88 6 , 8 8 8 ( T e x. Crim

. Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ) (e n ba n c) (c it in g Br ady v. United S tates , 397 U .S. 742 , 755 (1970 )).6

Addi ti onal ly , t o su ppor t a cl aim of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el w her e the
com plaint is tha t coun sel misu nde rstood the law regarding comm unity supervisi on, “more
mu st be ap pare nt f rom th e record th an trial cou nsel’s me re mista ke.” State v . R ecer , 815 S.W .2d 7 30, 7 31 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. Ins tead, there mustb e ev ide nce that: ( 1) the defendant w as ini ti all y

el ig ibl e to re cei v e probati on; ( 2) co unsel ’s adv ic e to g o to t he tr ial judge for sente ncing w as no t gi v en a s part of a v alid trial strat e gy; (3) the def end ant ’s deci si on to hav e the j u d ge ass ess puni shmentw as based on h is att or ney ’s er ro neous adv ic e; an d ( 4) the d e f e n d a nt’ s d eci si on w oul d hav e been different if hi s a ttor ney had
cor re ctl y i nformed hi m of the l aw
. Id. at73 1 -3 2 (cit in g Ex par te Cruz , 739 S.W .2d 5 3, 59 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ; Fl anagan v. State , 675 S.W .2d 7 34, 7 46- 47 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) ; Me rc ado v

. St ate , 615 S.W .2d 225 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81)). On appeal , Kotar a points solel y to his w ife’s testi mony

at the hear ing on the moti ons for new tr ial in a rg uin g thathi s t ri al couns el nev er adv is ed hi m thathe w as ine li g ibl e for
c o u rt -o rd e re d c o m m u n it y s u p e rvi s io n
. Ho we ve r, J e n n if e r d id n o tt e s t ify t h a tsh e wa s p ri vy to ea ch an d every

comm unica tion b etween Ko tara an d his trial coun sel; acco rdingly , it is poss ibl e that counse l dis cus sed Kotara’s inel ig ibi li ty w it h hi m w hil e s he w as not p re sent

. Ev en i f Jenni fe r did tes ti fy that she w as pr esentfor a ll su ch communi cat ion s a nd th at
couns el nev er

i nformed Ko tara of his ine li g ibi li ty , w e must “a ff or d almos t total deferen ce” to the tri al cour

t’ s deter minat ion of

the his tor ic al facts and of mix ed q uest ion s o f law and fact th at t ur n upon an ev alu ati on of credi bil it y and demeanor

. Rod

ri guez v. Sta te , 191 S. W .3 d 4 2 8 , 45 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Chri st i 2 0 0 6 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5 , 8 9 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1997) ; Jenni ngs v. State , 1 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 5 , 8 9 -9 0 (T e x. App.–S an Ant oni o 2003, no p et.) ). M or eov er , t he rec or d is dev oid of ev ide nce ind ic ati ng tha t Kota ra’s decision to have the ju dge assess p unish me nt w as ba sed o n his coun sel’s adv ic e, or that suc h adv ic e re pr esent ed anythi ng but a v ali d tr ial st ra teg y
. See R ecer , 815 S.W .2d a t 731 -3 2. K o t a ra has no t me t his “heavy burde n” to esta blish tha t his plea was inv olun taryAs par t of hi s cl osi ng ar gum ent at t he hear i ng on t he m ot i ons f or new t r i al , t he St at e’ s at t or ney st at ed 4 as f ol l ows: T her e was a pl ea o f f er t o [ si c] t en y ear s. I t hi nk t he d ef endan t t ur ned i t down. And as t he C our t k nows, i t ’ s up t o t he def endan t and t he d ef ense counsel as t o what t hey ’ r e go i ng t o do when t hey do a pl ea. N ow, t hey chose, i nst ead of t aki ng t he t en y ear s, one of t wo opt i ons. T h e y c o u l d h a v e g o n e to a ju ry a n d ta k e n th e i r c h a n c e s w i th th e ju ry. B u t b a s e d o n th e fa c ts

. . . t hey f el t t hat i t woul d be bet t er t o go t o t he Cour t , beca use t he Cour t has hear d t hi ngs, t he Cour t dea l s wi t h a l ot of cases, t he C our t dea l s wi t h m ur der s, t he Cour t dea l s wi t h r apes, and t hey wer e ho pi ng t hat t hr owi ng t hem sel v es t o t he m er cy of t he Cour t i t woul d be bet t er f or t hem

. 7 becau se of i neff ect iv e ass is tanc e of c ounse l. S e e G a rcia , 877 S.W .2d a t 812

. Acc or din g ly , w e ov er ru le his se cond is sue. C. In ef

fe ct iv e A

ssist ance o f Co un sel— Plea Bar gai n Of fe r By Kot ara’s third i s s u e , h e argues tha t his trial counse l w as inef fective becau se Kot ara w as “never info rmed of the St ate ’s w illing ness to ente r int o a p le a b a rgain for a sent ence of ten y ears.” 4 T o esta blish a claim for inef fective assistance of

coun sel, Kot ara must show (1) his atto rney’s represe nta tion f ell below an obje ctiv e stan dard of reason able ness, and (2) there is a reasona ble probabi li ty that , butfor h is att or ney ’s er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing
w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i ffe r e n t

. Str ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 664, 668; Hernan dez v. State , 726 S.W .2d 53, 57 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ; Jay nes v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 (Tex . App.- Cor pus Chr is ti 2006, no pet.)

. W hether this tes t has been met i s t o be jud g ed
on a ppe al by the tota lity of the r e p re s e n t a t io n, no t by any isolated acts or om issions. Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851

. T he burden is on the appellan t to prov e inef fective assistance of couns el by

a preponderance of the ev ide nce. Id. O u r re vie w of coun sel’s
re pr esent ati on i s h ighly deferen ti al, and w e w il l find i neff ect iv e as si sta nce onl y i f the appel lan t ov er comes the strong presu mpti on that his counsel ’s conductfell w it hin the w ide
ra ng e of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. Fur

ther , t he ac ts or

omi ss ion s t hat for m the basi s o f appell ant’ s c lai m of ine ff ect iv e assi sta nce must be ev ide nced by the re cord. See T

hom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 808, 814 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Jay nes , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t 8 5 1

. I n mo s t c a s e s , a s il ent8

re cord w hic h prov ide s n o ex pla nati on for couns el’ s a cti ons w il l not o verc o m e t he s trong pr esumpt ion of re asona ble as si sta nce. Ma llett v. State , 65 S.W .3d 59, 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4. Ine f fectiveness of

coun sel w ill be e stab lished where c o u n s e l fails to time ly communi cat e a p lea barg ain off er and the d efendant s tates that he w oul d hav e ac cept ed the plea barg ain of

fer if he had been i nformed of i t. S ta te v. W il lia ms , 83 S.W .3d 3 71, 3 75 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 2 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Ex parte Lemke , 1 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2000) ; Paz

v. Sta te , 28 S.W .3d 674, 676 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no pet .)). D ef end ant s w ho a re not inf orme d of a plea b argain of

fer at all by the ir attorne y s are g ener all y

v iew ed as hav ing been pr eju dic ed bythe mis sed oppor tuni ty to acc ept a n off er and presenti t t o the co urt for consi der ati on i n s entenc ing

. W il lia ms , 83 S.W .3d a t 375 (ci ti n g Lemke , 13 S. W .3d at 796 ). Here, al thoug h Kot ar a’s w ife testi fied th at s he di d nothear Kot ar a’s tr ial co unsel adv is e hi m of the St ate’ s p lea barg ain , Kotar a w as not presentand did not tes ti fy at al l at the h ear ing on t he moti ons for new tr ial

. Ev en if Kotara w as av ail abl e and did tes ti fy that his tr ial couns el did not infor m him of t he off er , no ev ide nce w as adduc ed es tabl is hin g that K o t a r a w o u l d h a v e a c c e p t e d t h e o ffe r h a d h e b e e n i n fo r med of it. S e e W

il lia ms , 83 S.W .3d a t 37 5. Mo re ov er , nei ther of Kotara’s moti ons for new tr ial al leg ed th at hi s t ri al
couns el w as ine ff ect iv e i n this parti cul ar w ay
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.2 (“ A moti on for new tr ial i s a pr er eq uis it e to pr esent ing a poin t of error on a ppeal onl y

w hen nec ess ar

y to adduc e facts not in the record.” ); Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 74 S.W .3d 1 9, 2 1 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) ( sta ti ng that , i n order to w ar ra nt a hear ing on a moti on for new tr ial , “ the s uppor

ti ng aff ida v itmustr eflectthatr eason abl e g ro unds ex ist f or hol din g thatsu ch re li ef shoul d be grant ed”). W e conc lud e that Kotara has not ov er come the strong pr esumpt ion that his tr ial
couns el’ s condu ct fell w it hin the w ide ra ng e of reason abl e professi onal as si sta nce. See Str ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851. Kotara’s thi rd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.9

D. Pro secu to rial M isco nd uct By his fourth issue, Kotara claim s that the St ate ’s attorne y comm itted miscon duct by r ecommendi ng a sent ence of tw enty -fiv e y ears at the sentenc ing heari ng of June 12, 2008, hav ing pr e viou sly “re commended a s entenc e of 10 y ears i n a p lea barg ain off er .” Kotara as ks us to conc lud e tha t “ the recommendat ion of 25 y ears w as re tal iat ion for n ot ent ering a plea of

g uilty.” T he o nly aut hority Kota ra c it e s i n supp ort of this claim is San R om an v . St ate , in
w hich th e El Paso Court of App eals held tha t “[w]he never a judge imp oses a more sev ere sent ence upo n a de fend ant af ter a ne w trial, the reaso ns for his doing so mu st af f irmatively
a p p e a r. ” 8 1 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 9 (T e x. A p p
. – E l P a s o 1 9 9 1 , n o p e t

. ). T h is d o e s n o ta p p ly, how ev er , t o pl ea barg ain off ers made by the Stat e. Indeed, the Stat e not es cor re ctl y that “a pl ea may

be i nduce d by

promis e of r ecommendat ion of a len ien t s entenc e or a reduct ion of c harg es, and

. . . iti s a ls o per mis si ble , i n the pl ea c ontext, to c onfront a defendant w it h a risk of more sev ere pu nishm ent .” Ster lin gv. St

ate , 7 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 8 (T e x. A p p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 19 9 0 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Bor denki rcher v. Hayes , 4 3 4 U

. S

. 3 5 7 , 3 64 (1 9 78) ). Ko tara has not est abl is hed t hat t he prosec utor co mmitt ed mi sc onduc t i n the ins tant cas e. Hi s four

th i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.

III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Ma y , 200 9.