### NUM BER 13-08- 0055 3-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
VICE NT E D A

VILA , 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 94 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION 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, Vi cent e D av il a, ap peal s t he rev ocat ion of his co mmunity su per v isio n. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 42 .12 § 23(b) (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). By four issues, Davi la argues tha t (1) the original convi ction for repea ted fam ily v iolence assau lt, for w hich he recei v ed a probated sent ence and c ommunit y su per v is ion , was based s ole ly onSect i on 2 2. 01 h as be en a m ended si nce Davi l a was i nd i ct ed, but t he a m endm ent s di d no t 1 s u b s ta n ti v e l y c h a n g e th e p o rti o n o f th e s ta tu te u n d e r w h i c h D a v i l a w a s c h a rg e d ; r a th e r , th e a m e n d m e n ts m e re l y a d d e d s u b d i v i s i o n s to th e te x t. See Act of M ay 15, 200 7, 80t h Le g. , R

. S. , ch. 623 , §§ 1, 2, 200 7 T EX
. S ESS
. L AW S E RV
. 1194, 119 4- 95 ( Ver non) (e ff ect i v e S ept

. 1, 200 7) ; Act of M ay 21, 200 9, 81st Leg

. , R

. S. , ch. 427, § 1, 200 9 T ex. Sess. Law Ser v . 1019, 1019- 1020 ( Ver non) ( eff ect i v e Sept

. 1, 200 9) ; Act of M ay 31, 200 9, 81st Leg

. , R

. S. , ch. 655 , § 2, 200 9 T EX
. S ESS
. L AW S E RV
. 148 4, 1485 ( Ver non) ( eff ect i v e Sept

. 1, 200 9)

. T hus, we ci t e t o t he cu r r ent v er si on. 2 p e rj u re d e vid e n c e i n v i o la t io n o f h is d u e p ro c e s s ri gh t s ; (2 ) h e re c e ive d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel dur ing th e r e voc a ti on hear ing ; ( 3) the Stat e fail ed to tend er ex cul pator

y ev ide nce; and (4 ) the p uni shmentas ses sed was dis propor ti onate to t he
s er i ou s ne s s o f t he a l l eg ed o ffens e. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Apr il 6, 2006, Dav il a w as ind ic ted for repeated famil y

v iol ence ass aul t. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. 22.01( a) , (b) (2 )( A) (Ver non Supp. 2009)

. Thi s c harg e w as based on a 1
re por t by hi s w ife, G enov iv a D av il a, t hat Da vi la had as saul ted h er
. On A pr il 26, 2006, Davi la plea ded g uilty, and pursua nt to a plea b a rg ain, h e w as sen ten ced to f iv e y ears’ impr is onment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju st ice —In sti tuti onal D iv is ion and
ass ess ed a $1,500 fine and cour t cos ts. The tr ial co urt s uspen ded t he pr is on s entenc e for fiv e y ears and pla ced Dav il a on communi ty su per v is ion

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42 .12 § 3(a). On A ug ust24, 2006, the S tate mov ed to r ev oke Dav il a’s co mm u n ity su per v is ion , all eg ing thathe v iol ated the ter ms of his communi ty

super v is ion by(1) us ing al cohol ; ( 2) usi ng mar ij uana; (3 ) usi ng crac k coc ain e, (4) f ail ing to re por t t o hi s s uper

v is ion off ic er ; and (5 ) faili ng to pay

the fine and fees asses sed by the cour t. On September

18, 2006, the t ri al court he ard the rev ocat ion m otion , and Dav ila plead ed “true ” to the St ate ’s allegations. The tr ial courtdid not rev oke Dav il a’s community super v is ion . Inst ead, the c our t order ed3

Dav il a to ser

v e a t er m of confinementand tr eatment in the S ubst ance Abus e F elo ny Prog ra m (S AFP ) and c onti nued hi s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. See i

d. art. 42.12 § 23 (a)(4). On J uly 21, 2008, the S tate filed a s econ d m o ti on to r ev oke Dav il a’s co mmunity super v is ion

. This moti on al leg ed th at D av il a v iol ated the t er ms of hi s c ommunit y super v is ion by : (1 ) faili ng to pay for h is ur ina ly si s t est s; (2 ) tes ti ng posi ti v e for marijua na; (3 ) admit ti ng to the u se of marijua na; (3) f ail ing to re por t to his super

v is ion off ic er ; ( 4) fail ing to pa y fines and cos ts ass ess ed by the cour t; and ( 5) fail ing to atten d i ndi v idu al and g ro up coun seling sessio n s . Th e trial court he ld a hea ring on Se pte mb er 5, 20 08, and Dav ila ple aded “ tr ue” to all of the a ll eg ati ons in the s econd moti on to r ev oke. The Stat e the n present ed ev ide nce on punis hment. Olg a Her nandeztesti fied th at she is Davi la’s proba tion of f icer. She t estif ied tha t Davi la had n ine con v ictions for “assault fam ily viole n ce .” Sh e rec o m m e n d e d th a t t h e co u rtrevo ke Da vila ’s c o m m u n it y sup e rvisio n, a n d if no t, pl a ce hi m in SA PF aga in

. On cro ss -e xam in a ti o n , t h e fo llo wing e xch a n ge occ ur re d: Defense couns el: And t he v ic ti m—th e a lle ged vic ti m i n thi s c ase w as

Genov iv a? The Cou rt : Notthe all eg ed v ic ti m, th e vic ti m b e cause he’ s been

conv ic ted. Defense co unsel : Oka y , w e’l l g et there her e in a sec ond, Y our Hon or
. Is

that his w ife? Hernan dez: Yes, sir

. Defense co unsel : Oka y . W er e the re any pi ctu re s i n tha t c ase? Her nandez : Noti n my fil e. Defense co unsel : No t in your file. Y ou—di d y ou—di d y ou know that the

v ic ti m di d notw ant t o prosec ute i n thi s c ase?4

Her nandez : No, I did not. De fe n s e co u n s e l: O k a y. Th e C o u rt : But that’ s ir re lev ant, re all y , bec a u se he ’s been

conv ic ted. He ’s been conv ic ted a bunc h of ti mes of as s au l ti ng t ha t v i c ti m. Defense coun sel: W ell, Your Honor— T he Court: I me an, look, he ma y —he ma y disagree w ith tha t butit d o e s n ’tm a t t e r t o m e b e c a u s e h e ’s b e e n fo u n d gu il t y. Dav il a then tes ti fied. On di re ct ex aminat ion , D av il a s tated thathe i s v er y si ck w it h ci rr hosi s o f the l iv er , hep ati ti s C , t uber cul osi s, and ”l ack of [potas si um].” H e ex pla ine d tha t he was g ettin g w eake r by the da y and thatthe doctor told him he had only tw o mo re y ears to liv e. He f urthe r te stif ied tha t he has an enla rg ed hea rt a nd blee ding u lcers. On crossex aminat ion , t he St ate a sk ed w hether D av il a broug ht anyof his medi cal r ecords suppo rt ing his medi cal hi sto ry , and Dav il a sai d no. The Stat e re ferr ed to probati on records ind ic ati ng that Dav ila su b mitt ed a medic al w or ks heet to hi s p ro bati on officer on F ebr uar

y 1, 2009 sta ti ng thathe w as “p ain free. ” D av il a deni ed th at t he medi cal w or ks heet w as cor re ct. Dav il a the n tes ti fied th at G enov iv a had li ed to the pol ice wh e n she repor ted t he or ig ina l
ass aul t i n 2006. After Dav il a fini shed tes ti fyi ng , Genov iv a rai sed her hand and w as re cog niz ed by the
cour t. Geno v iv a w as sw or n, an d befor e a q uest ion could be asked of her, she tes ti fied th at she saw her father die from li v er ci rr hosi s, and therefore, she w oul d “mak e up li es jus t t o g et [ Dav il a] l ock ed up becau se [sh e] w oul d s ee hi m dr ink ing .” In a dis cus si on w it h the t ri al
cour t, Genov iv a deni ed th at Dav il a w as v iol ent and cl aimed he w as a g ood prov ide r. She admit ted t hat on the nig ht that s he c lai med thatD av il a as saul ted h er i n 2006, sh e w as not5

at ho me and t hat s he to ld her tw elv e- y ear-o ld daug hter to li e to the p oli ce to c or ro borate her st or y . Nei ther

D av il a’s defense couns el nor the Stat e as ked any

q uest ion s. The tr ial
cour t t hen s tated on t he record: I mean, l ook, thi s i s y our st uff

. I mean, I did n’tge t you here. Y ou k now , I didn ’t put you here. Y ou p ut yourself here. I t’s n ot y our atto rney’s fault, it’s not t he St ate’ s faul t, it ’s not any o f t h e other peopl e’s fault, i t’ s n ot y our family ’s fa u l t , a n d I d o n ’ t b e l i e v e t h e fa c t t h a t y o u r w i fe s a i d s h e w a s l y ing abo ut it. I just don ’t believe her. I t hin k t hat y ou are not a bad g uy w hen y ou g et up i n the mor nin g and y ou go to w ork and w hen y ou’r e n o t d ri n k in g, but I think th e min ute y ou h it that bottl e y ou tu rn i nto a bad person, and the factthaty ou’ re sh aki ng y our head mak es me bel iev e y ou hav en’ t hea rd a thi ng so I her eby r ev oke y our com mu nity supe rv ision prob ation , sent ence y ou to f iv e y ears T DC. On September 5, 2008, the tr ial cour t si g ned an order re v oki ng Da vila ’s c ommunit y super v is ion and impos ing the or ig ina l sent ence. The t ri al cour t c erti fied D av il a’s r ig ht t o appeal on S eptember

16, 2008. On Se pte mb er 29, 2 008 , Da vil a f iled a m otion for new trial and a mot ion in arrest of judg ment. In the mot ion , D av il a al leg ed th at t her e w as “[ e]v ide nce of medic al re cords statin g tha t [Davi la] is ill and his h e a lth is cri tical due to cont agious disea ses[,] and this
ev ide nce w as not i ntroduce d at [D av il a’s ] tr ial for cons ide ra ti on by thi s H onorabl e C our

t.” Davi la subm itted an af

f idavit by Cathy C lark, Dav ila’s attorne y , w hich sta ted thatev iden ce ex is ted suppor

ti ng his medic al cl aims and the ev ide nce w as not i ntroduce d i nto e v ide nce. The aff ida v it , how ev er , di d n o t e xpla in w hy the ev ide nce w as not s ubmit ted a t t he
rev ocat ion hearing. On Octobe r 7, 20 08, Dav ila subm itted med ical records and an af f idavit f rom Iren e Martinez, the cust odia n of records for Christus Spo hn Hosp ita l Me mo rial, in suppo rtof the moti on for new tr ial

. These records re fer to treatments and hospi tal iz ati ons in 2002, 2003, and 200 4.6

On O cto ber

30, 2008, the t ri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on the mot ion for n ew tr ial

. At the hea ring on the m otion for n ew trial, Dav ila’s counse l informe d the court tha t beca use Genov iv a recant ed her

st atements aboutDav il a’s assaul t, she w as pro sec uted for maki ng false sta tements to the poli ce and to the dis tr ic t at tor ney
. How ev er , no ev ide nce re g ardin g the a rrestw as tendered or admi tted at t he hear ing

. Dav il a tes ti f ied abouthi s medi cal condi ti ons, and the t ri al cour t den ied the moti on for new tr ial

. This appeal ens ued. II. P E RJ URE D E V I DE NCE By hi s first is sue, D av il a arg ues that his due proces s ri g hts under the Uni ted S tates Co n st it u tion w er e v iol ated becau se his co nv ic ti on for re peat family v iol ence ass aul t w as based on G enov iv a’s alle g ati ons, w hic h she recant ed. See U .S. C ON ST
. am end . XIV. H e
arg ues that a c onv ic tio n based on per jured te sti mony

ca nnot sta nd. See E x p ar te Car m ona , 185 S.W .3d 492 , 496 (Tex. Cr im

. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ). The State argues thatw e lack jur is dic ti on to cons ide r thi s arg ument becau se Dav il a i s n ot en ti tl ed to ch all eng e the or ig ina l adj udi cat ion of g uil t on appeal f ro m a rev ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion

. W e ag re e w it h the S tate. Article 44.1 2, sect ion 23 (b) of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure provides a
cr imi nal defendant’ s a ppel lat e remedie s a fter t he rev ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion : The r ig ht of the defendant to ap peal for a rev iew of the c onv ic ti on and pu ni s hm en t, a s p rov i de d by l aw , s ha l l be ac c orde d th e de fen da nta t th e ti me he is place d on comm unity supervisi on. W hen he is notif ied thathis communi ty

su per v is ion i s rev oked for v io la ti on of the condi ti ons of com mu nity supe rv ision an d he is called on to serv e a sent ence in a jail or in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce, he may appeal the re v ocat ion

. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN
. art. 44 .12 § 23(b). Davi la w as con v icted o f repea t fam ily
v iol ence ass aul t upo n his g uil ty plea and sentenc ed to fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonmenti n 2006.W e exp r ess no opi ni on o n t he p ot ent i al success ofa pet i t i on f or wr i t of hab eas co r pus. 2
7 That s entenc e w as p ro b a te d b y t he tr ial co urt, and D av il a w as pla ced on c ommunit y s u p e rvi s io n , a ls o in 2 0 0 6

. An y a p p e a l o f t h e co n vic t io n a n d p u n is h m e n tsh o u ld h a ve occ ur re d in 2006 at the ti me D av il a w as pla ced on c ommunit y su per v is ion

. See i

d. ; Jor dan
v . S tate , 5 4 S.W .3d 783 , 786 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01). T he revocation of Dav ila’s communi ty

su per v is ion di d notresu lt f ro m Genov iv a’s per jured te sti mony

r eg ardin g the
assau lt, butf rom Davila’s pleas of “true” to the a lleged v iola t io n s o f t he co nditio ns of

his communi ty

su per v is ion

. Dav il a’s r emedy , i f any , for the o ri g ina l adj u d ica ti o n o f g uil t for repe at fam ily

v iolence assau lt is by

w ay of a w rit of hab eas co rpus. See C ar m ona , 185 2 S.W .3d a t 496 -9 7; Jo rd an , 54 S.W .3d at 787. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Da v il a’s f irst is sue. III . I N EFFEC TI VE A SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL By hi s s econd i ss ue, D av il a arg ues that he recei v ed i neff ect iv e as si sta nce of
c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e r e v o c a t i o n b a s e d o n s e v e r a l a l l e g e d fa i l u r e s b y h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l

. W e dis ag re e. W e appl y

the tw o- prong ed Str

ickl and an a lys is t o de term ine w het 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 tt h a ti tvio 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 3 90, 392 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05); Jayne s v. S tate , 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 , 466 U.S

. 6 68, 6 84 ( 1984)

. An app ell ant c lai ming 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

reason able ness, and (2) there is a reason able p ro b a b il it y 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 .3d a t 851 ; see Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7.D a v ila a ls o s ta te s th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e f o r f a ilin g to “ a d v is e h im a c c o r d in g ly b e f o r e h is 3 p le a a n d b e f o r e tr ia l.” It is u n c le a r f r o m th e b r ie fw h a t a d v ic e D a v ila w a s s e e k in g o r w h e n . W e h o ld th a t t h is a rg u m e n t i s i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .1 (i).
8 W e afford g r ea t de feren c e to t r i al c ou ns el ’ s a bi l i ty

— “ an a pp el l an t mu s t ov erc om e th e s trong presum ption thatcoun sel’s cond uct f ell w ithin th e w ide range of reason able prof ession al a s s is t a nce. ” Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. The appel lan t mus t prov e bot h ele ments of the Str

ickl and tes t by

a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Mu noz v. Sta te , 24 S.W .3d 427 , 434 (T ex. Ap p.– Corpus Christi 20 00, n o pet .). Allegatio ns of inef fectiveness must be fir mly

founded i n the record. Ma llet v . St ate , 65 S.W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 1). Th e record on direct app eal w ill g e n erallybe insuf f icient to show tha t coun sel's
re pr esent ation w as so defici ent a s t o meet the first prong of the Str ickl and ana ly sis. Ry lan der v. St ate , 101 S. W .3d 1 07, 1 10 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003)

. An app ro pr iat e record,
w hic h s houl d i ncl ude c ounse l’ s reason s for hi s a cti ons, i s u sual ly pr epar ed ata he ar ing on a moti on for new

tr ial or dev elo ped by

a w ri t of habeas co rp us. Bati ste , 217 S.W .3d 7 4, 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6 , n o p et.)

. “‘ [T]r ial co unsel sh oul d ordin ar il y be af fo rd e d a n op portu nity to explain his actio ns be fore be ing deno unce d as inef fective.’” Goods peed , 18 7 S. W .3 d a t 3 9 2 ( q u o ti n g Ry lan der , 101 S.W .3d a t 111 ). Ab sentan oppor tuni ty for t he at tor ney

to ex pla in his ac ti ons, an a ppel lat e c o urt s houl d not“ find defici ent p er

forma n ce u nle ss the chal len g ed c onduc t w as ‘s o out ra g eous that no com pet entatto rney w ould h a ve e ngaged in it.’” Id. (qu o ti n g Gar ci a v . St ate , 57 S.W .3d 436 , 440 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 01)). Fi rs t, Dav il a arg ues that alt h oug h hi s a ttor ney ca ll ed Ge nov iv a as a w it ness , he failed to ex a m in e h e r to est ablish h er credibility

. Dav ila argues thatGeno v iv a’s false 3 all eg ati ons and c re dib il it y affect ed his abi li ty

to re cei v e a fair

tri al “ becau se her

ac cus ati ons9

coupl ed w it h prev iou s c our t proc eedi ng s av ail abl e to the Cour t taint ed th e C our

t’ s v iew of [D av il a] c ausi ng the Cou rtto re v oke [D av il a’s ] communit y su per v is ion , s entenc ing hi m to fiv e ( 5) y ears i ncarcerati on.” D av il a fu rt h e r arg ues that his att or ney fail ed to r eq uesta cont inu ance of th e hear ing to inv est ig ate G enov iv a’s l ies , and thi s w as not mere tr ial strateg y . Dav il a has not made a proper sh ow ing thathi s c ounse l w as ine ff ect iv e by fail ing to
cross -e x amine Genov iv a and by fail ing to re q uesta c onti nuanc e to further i nv est ig ate h er tes ti mony
. The tr ial co urt ex pr ess ly st ated o n the record tha t i t di d notbel iev e tha t Genov iv a’s tes ti mony

w as rel ev ant b ecaus e D av il a had already been conv ic ted o f the
ass a u l t , a n d t h a ti s s u e w a s n o tb e fo r e t h e c o u rt

. W e b e l i e v e t h a ti tw a s p l a u s i b l e tr ial strateg y for D av il a’s counsel not to cross -e x amine Genov iv a, gi v en that s he had already tes ti fied th at s he l ied aboutthe all eg ati on of ass aul t and thatthe tri a l cour t had al re ady deter mined her

tes ti mony

w as ir re lev ant. W e al so dis ag re e tha t t he rec o rd s h o ws th at Dav il a’s co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e by fail ing to re q uesta c o n tinuanc e to inv est ig ate Genov iv a’s tes ti mony
. Dav il a’s co unsel kn ew aboutthe per

jur y at th e t im e of the
re v ocat ion hear ing bec ause he al lud ed to i t dur ing hi s c ro ss -e x aminat ion of Her nandezand
w as prep ared to call Gen oviv a as a w itness. Altho ugh Davi la f iled a mo tion fo r new trial, nei ther thatmoti on nor

any of the a ff ida v it s a ttac hed t her eto d is cuss the t ri al strateg y of Dav il a’s co unsel

. On t his record, w e c annot say thatD av il a has r e b u tt e d t he s trong pr esumpt ion of eff ect iv e c ounse l. Id. Next, D avil a argues tha t his def ense coun sel failed to introd u c e m e d ica l history
ev ide nce at t he rev ocat ion hear ing , w hic h w oul d hav e s how n tha t D av il a s houl d hav e been10

pla ced in a medic al facil it y or an out- pati ent tr eatment cent er
. The Stat e poi nts out that the medic al re cords that w er e s ubmit ted in suppor t of D av il a’s moti on for new tr ial are records f rom hospi ta l i z at i on s o r t r ea tm en ts i n 20 00 , 20 02 , 20 03 , an d 20 04

. Th e ev i de nce pr esent ed did not show Dav il a’s cur re nt phy si cal condi ti on. N ev erthel ess , atthe re v ocat ion h e a ri n g, Da vil a h im s e lf t e s t if ie d t o h is m e d ic a l h is t o ry du ri n g qu e s t io n in g b y h is a t t o rn e y. T he m otion for new trial did notprovi de a ny explanat ion for coun sel’s failure to int rodu ce the medi cal r ecords, and on thi s re cord, w e c annot say thatD av il a has r ebutt ed th e s trong pr esumpt ion of eff ect iv e c ounse l. Id. Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le his se cond is sue. IV. W I TH HOL DI NG E XCU LPA TOR Y E V I DE NCE By hi s thi rd iss ue, Dav il a arg ues that at the time of the rev ocat ion hear ing , t he St ate “w as aw ar e or

sh oul d hav e been aw ar e tha t [ Genov iv a] ha d an outs tandi ng w ar ra nt for her arrest for False Repo rting to a Police Of f icer fo r making a previous false com plaintagainst [D av il a],” and the p ro sec utor fail ed to di sc los e thi s know led g e to Dav il a’s co unsel or to the tr ial co urt. D av il a arg ues that on September 15, 2 008, ten d ay s a fter t he hear ing on t he moti on t o re v o k e , G e n o v i v a p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t h e c h a rg e s a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o tw enty day s i n jai l and ass ess ed cour t cos ts. Dav il a attac hed a pr int out t o hi s b ri ef as “ Ex hib itA,”
w hic h pur por

ts to be a document pr int ed from t he N ueces C ounty D is tr ic t C ler k’ s C ri minal Ca s e s e a rc h we b s it e
. T h is d o c u m e n t s h o ws th a t a p e rs o n n a m e d “G e n o ve va He rn a n d e z”
w as ar re ste d on September 15, 2008, after the heari ng on the motion to re v oke, for mak ing a f als e repor

t to law enfor cement

. W e do not cons ide r ev ide nce attac hed t o br iefs that w as not p art of the re cord i n the tr ial co urt. See R am ir ez v. Sta te , 1 0 4 S. W .3d 5 49, 5 51 n. 9 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ; Har tm an v . St ate , 198 S.W .3d 8 29, 8 42 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti11

2006, pet. str uck ). Be caus e D av il a has not suppo rt ed hi s a rg ument w it h referenc es to t he tr ial co urt record, w e hol d thi s is sue is ina deq uatel y br iefed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(i). Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le his thi rd i ss ue. V. D I SPRO POR TI ON A TE P UNI S HMENT By hi s four th i ss ue, D av il a arg ues that the sente nce he rec eiv ed i s d is propor ti onate to t he s ev er it y

of the c ri me i n v iol ati on of hi s Eig hth Amendment ri g ht to be free from cr uel and unu sual puni shment

. See U .S. C ON ST
. a m end . VIII. The State argues thatDav ila
w aived this com plaint byfailing to object o n this ground in the trial court. W e agree. Davi la made no obj ect ion to his se ntenc e i n the tr ial cour t atthe ti me of sent enci ng or i n any pos tt ri a l m otion

. Accordin gly , he has failed to prese rv e this issue fo r our review , a n d we ov er ru le hi s four

th is sue. See S chnei

der v. Sta te , 645 S.W .2d 463, 466 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1983) ; Tr

evi no v . St ate , 174 S.W .3d 9 25, 9 27- 29 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ri sti 2005, pet.
re f’d) ; see als o F

igu er oa v . St ate , No

. 1 3 -0 8
- 0 0 1 1 5
- C V , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 4 8 9 8 4 2 , a t*1 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi Oct. 29, 200 9, pet. ref ’d) (mem

. op. , notdesignate d for pub lication). VI. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Dav il a’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

________ 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 er ed and filed the 8th d ay of Jul y , 201 0.