### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 472 -CR

Se an A lle n Ha r r iso n , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -30 0938 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant, Sean Allen Ha rrison, g uil t y

of one c ount of ag g ravated sexual assault. See T ex . P en al C o d e An n . § 2 2
. 0 2 1 (a )( 1 )( A) (i ) ( W es tS u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e t ri al j u d ge assessed punishment at twenty -seve n y ear s’ conf inement. Har

rison challeng es his con v i ct i on,
asser ting that he rec eived inef

fec tive assistance of counse l. We affirm the tria l court’s judg ment.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Ha rr iso n a nd A. B . h a d a

n “ on a g a in/ of f a g a in” ro manti c re la tio nshi p th a t be g a n in 2001, when both we re hig h school seniors. I n m id -Ma rch 2 00 6, A.B. end ed th e rel ati on sh ip . A. B. testi fi ed that she attempted to maintain a friendship with Ha

rrison, but that she “r ealized that was not g oingto w o r

k ” b e c a u s e H ar r is o nc a ll e d

h e r e v e r y d ay an d s h e “ d id n ’ t w an t t o g iv e u

p dates
on wh e re [she ] wa s o r w ho [she ] wa s h ang ingou t wi th .” S om e time i n e arl y - t o mi d- Ap ri l, A
. B
. a tt e mp te d to e n d h e r f r ie n d s h ip w it

h H ar r is o n , an d to ld h im th a t s h e “ d id n ot want to speak2

with him . . . did not want any sort of contact with him
. . . didn’t want him in [ her] life any more.” Nonethele ss, Harr ison continued to send her text messag es and e mails. On April 22, A.B . made plans to mee t a frie nd, Robert DeSeguera , to dance at Plush,
a club in Austin’s Six th Street enter tainment district that she fre quented r eg ularly
. Be fore heading out for the e vening , A.B . rec eived a text messag e fr om Harr ison say ing “ something a long the lines
o f , I w i l l f i n d yo ut o n i g h t
. ” A
. B
. t e s t i f i e d a s t o h e r r e a c t i o nt o t h i s t e x tm e s s a g e : “ I w a s a l w a ys
scar ed of him, so there was the initial fea r. But I was to the point that I was fe d up and I didn’t want my life to be a ffe cted or

controlled any

more.” A.B
. met DeSeguera as planned. When Plus h closed at 2:00 a.m., A.B ., DeSeguera , and De Seg uera’s fr i en d walked w est on Six th Street towards DeSeguera ’s ca

r. Beca use all of the ba

rs had just closed, Six th Street was ve ry crow ded, and A .B., De Se g ue ra , and his fr ie nd wa lke d sin g le fi le thr ou g h th e c ro wd . A ft e r w a lki ngtw o to thr e e blo c ks , A.B . felt a je rk on her

arm. Ha rrison, who “ seeme d intox icated” and “very ag g ressive,” said to A.B., “I told y ou I would find y ou. You need to c ome with me
. We ne ed to ta lk.” A.B . testified that she told Harrison, “ no, I ’m not y our g irlfriend a ny more. L eave me alone,” but that he starte d pulling her towards Seve nth Street. Althoug h she broke fre e and r an at one point, Ha rrison caug ht up w ith her, pic ke d h e r u

p f ro m be hin d, and

c on tin ue d to wa rd s Se ve nth Str e e t, c arr

y ing he r a bo ut tw e nty fe e t to his car. A .B. sc rea

med and strug g led, but the ar ea w as loud and “ no one see med to notice.” DeSeguera

testified that he sa w Har rison g rab A .B., a

nd that she “looke d rea lly scar ed,” but that Har rison and A.B . then disappea red into the c rowd. At the ca r, Ha rrison pulled out a knife , pointed it at A .B.’ s mid-section, and f orce d her into the c ar. H arr ison pro ce ed ed t o y ell and slap A.B . as he dr ove, ultimately arr iving at the3

southwest Austin home of his friend, Andrew “ Dre w” Dr iden. Ha rr iso n p us he d h e r i nto the ho us e at kni fe- point and took her into the bedroom where he wa s stay ing. He tol d A .B . h e wa s g oin g to kil l hi mse lf

tha t ni g ht, lif te d u p th e ma ttr e ss, and

pu lle d o ut a

sh otgun . H arr iso n p us he d A .B . o nto the bed a nd put the barr el of the g un ag ainst her face
. He r emoved A.B .’s skirt and under wea r and beg an takingphotogr aphs of he r with a dig ital camer a. Har rison then sexually

assaulted A.B
. After the a ssa ult , H arr iso n g ot d

re sse d a nd c on tin ue d to y e ll and thr e a te n to kil l hi mse lf and A. B . H e hit he r w ithhe r c e ll p ho ne and the g un . H e wr ote “ min e ” on on e sh otgun sh e ll a nd a sk e d h e r t o w ri te her na me on another , then loaded the g un wi t h b o t h s h ell s. A.B. tr ied to calm Ha rrison down. Eventually

he beg an g etting tire d and laid down on the be d with her. A.B
. then t old Har rison that her c ar w as par

ked downtown a

nd wa s go i n g to ge t towed. Around 5:00 or 6:00 a .m., Harr ison dr ov e A. B . b a c k to he r c ar. A. B . d ro ve ho me , w e nt t o s le e p, and re po rt e d th e a ssa

ult to h e r p a re nts later that day . A.B .’s par ents contac ted the police.

Harri s o n wa s ch ar ged wi t h t wo co u nts of ag g rava ted sexual assault, to which he pleade d not guilty . At trial, Har rison’s counsel elicited testi mony from A.B . reg ardingsever al prior bad ac ts by

Har rison including: an alterc ation at t he home of J ames Ry an P ace in Marc h 2002 that resulted in the police being called; a n alterc ation in Harr ison’s vehicle in Aug ust 2002 dur ing w hich Har rison beat A.B .; Harr ison’s arr est in September 2002 f or assa ulting A.B . in a movie theate r; Har rison’s ar rest in J anua ry 2 0 03 for a ssaulting his father duringan alter cation with A.B . at Ha rr iso n’ s p are nts ’ h ome ; H arr iso n’ s arr e st i n Jun e 20 05 fo r b ri ng inga su ic ide no te a dd res se d to A.B
. and a loaded semi-automatic pi stol to the hom e of A.B .’s friend; Har rison’s ar rest in J une 20054

for telephone har assment and thre ats ag ainst A.B.; a nd Har rison’s ar rest in Marc h 2006 for assaulting a roommate
.

On re direc t examination, t he prose cutor que stioned A.B. a bout the details of seve ral of these inc idents. I n addition, the prosec utor subsequently ca l l ed four witnesse s who furthe r elabor ated on some of

these incidents: Pace; Phill ip James Warner , a witness to the movie theater assault; the T ra v i s C o u n t y S h er i ff ’s De p u t y wh o re s p o n d edt o t h e i n ci d en ti n v o l v i n g t h e s u i ci d e n o t e; and the Hay s County

Sheriff’ s Deputy

who re sponded the ha

rassment incide nt. Defe nse counse l reque sted and obtaine d a limit ing instruction f or the testimony

of ea ch of the se witnesses instructing t h e j u r y t h a ti tc o u l d

c o n s i d e r t h e i r t e s t i m o n y f

o r t h e l i m i t e d p u r

p o s e o f r e b u t t i n g a d e f

e n s i v e t h e o r

y. After hear ing the evidenc e, the jury found Ha rrison g uilty

of one count of ag g ravated sexual assault for causing the penetration of t he victim ’s s exual org an with his sexual orga n without her co n s en t and using or exhibit ing a deadly wea pon during the commission of the offe nse. The court then imposed a

sentenc e of twenty -seve n y ear s’ confine ment. Har rison filed a motion for ne w trial; howeve r, the motion did not raise ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, and no he aringwas he ld. I n h is s ole iss ue on

a pp e a l, H arr iso n a

rgue s th a t he re c e ive d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l be c a

us e his a tto rn e y

e lic ite d h arm fu l e xtra

ne ou s offen se a

nd pr ior ba d a c ts e vid e nc e that ot he rw ise wo uld have be en excluded, ther eby opening the door to additional dama g ing e vidence from the State.

DI SCU SSIO N A d e fe nd ant i s c on sti tut ion a lly e nti tle d to re a so na bly e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. Sta ffo rd v . S tat e , 813 S.W .2d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Howeve r, this constituti onal rig ht do e s n ot m e an th a t a

de fe nd ant i s e nti tle d to e rr or le ss c ouns e l or c ouns e l w ho se c om pet ency is5

judge d by hindsight. Id . We evaluate claims of inef fec tive assistance of counse l ag ainst the standar d
s et forth in Strickland v. W ashington
. See 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7 ( 19 84 ); H e rn a n d e z v . S tat e , 988 S.W .2d 770, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n deciding a cl ai m o f i n effective a ssistance of counsel, we must determine whe ther a n attorney ’s per formanc e was defic ient and, if so, whe ther that defic iency

prejudice d the def

ense. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7; Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). An attorney ’s per formanc e is defic ient if it fall s below an obje ctive standard of r ea s o n ab l eness. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 8; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. Def icient pe rf or manc e is pr e

jud ic ia l w he n, bu t f

or the a tto rn e y ’s un

pr of e ssi on a l c on du c t, t

he re is a re a so na ble probability

that the outcome of the proce eding would have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. “A r easona ble probabilit y is a probability sufficie nt to undermine confide nce in the outc ome.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812.

It i s t h e d e f

e n d an t ’ s b u r d e nt o p r o v e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. I n deter mining whe ther a

n attorney ’s pe rf or manc e wa s d e fi c ie nt, we a pp ly a str on g pr esu mp ti on

that th e a tto rn e y ’s c on du c t w a s w ith in the wide r ang e of r easona ble profe ssional ass i s t ance. Id . at 813. We revie w the ef fec tiveness of counsel in lig ht of the totality of the re prese ntation and the cir cumstance s of ea ch ca se. Id
. I n most cases, a

n undevelope d rec ord on direc t appea l is insufficient to satisfy the
re quirements of Strickland beca use the re asonable ness of c ounsel’s dec isions often involves fac ts not appea ring in the appellate rec ord. Ry lan de r v . S tat e , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Wit hout evidence of the strateg y and met h o d s i n v olved conc erningcounsel’s a ctions at trial, an appellate court should pr esume a sound trial strate g y . See Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. Where, a s he re , a na l l e g a t i o no f

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l i s n o tr a i s e d

i na m o t i o nf o r n e w t r i a l,6

tr ia l c ouns e l ha s n o o pp or tun ity to e xpla in h is c on du c t, a nd a bs e nt s uc h o ppor

tun ity , a n a pp e llate court should not find defic ient perf ormanc e unless the challeng ed conduct wa s “so outrag eous that no competent attorney

would have e ng ag ed in it.” Go od sp e e d v . S

tat e , 187 S.W .3d 390, 392 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 57 S.W .3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). Har rison complains that his couns el i m proper ly “opene d the door” to damag ing evidenc e whe n he elicited te stimony from A.B
. reg arding extraneous offe nses and pr ior bad a cts that oth e rw ise wo uld

have be e n excl ud e d. Ev ide nc e of a pe rs on ’s c ha

ra c te r i s g e ne ra lly

no t a dmi ssi ble for the pur

pose of pr oving a ction in conformity there with o n a p ar t i cular occa sion. Tex. R . Evid. 404(a) . An exception to this general r ule is evidenc e of the char acte r of the a ccuse d in a cr iminal
case offe red by the accused or offe red by the prosecution in rebuttal. Id . 404(a) (1)( A). L ikewise, evidenc e of othe r cr imes, wrong s, or acts by a defe ndant are not a dmissibl e to prove the cha rac ter of a person in or der to show confor mity there with, but may

be admissible for othe r purpose s such
a s p r o o f o f m o t i v e , o p p o rtu n i t y, i n t e n t , a b s e n c e o f m i s t a k e o r

a c c i d e n t , o r

t o r e b u ta d e f e n s i v e t h e o r

y. Te x. R. E vid . 4 04 (b ); Po we ll v . S tat e , 63 S.W .3d 435, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Har rison argues that due to his attorney ’s re peate d ref ere nces to his extraneous off enses a nd prior bad ac ts, he was portray ed throug hout the g uilt-inno ce n ce p h as e of the trial as beinga dang erous, volatile, violent individual, which prejudice d the jury ag ainst him in weig hing all of the other evidenc e. He c ontends that this constitut es ineff

ective a ssistance of c ounsel bec ause defense attorney s normally g o to gr eat leng ths to ex clude e x trane ous offe nses and pr ior bad a cts and that his counse l “ went to g reat leng ths to allow it in.” We disagr ee.

Har rison does not prese nt any rec ord of his counse l’s decision to elicit extraneous offe nse or prior bad act testim ony from A.B. or any evidenc e showing that this decision was not part7

of a r easona

ble trial strate g y . I n fac t, H arr ison note s that “the only possible strateg ic explanation” fo r his c ouns e l’ s dec isi on to el ic it extr ane ou s off e ns e or pr ior

ba d a c t te sti mony

fr om A .B . w a s to rebut the state ’s evidenc e of f light f ro m t he police by

showing that Har

rison “has a lway s been
wron g e d b y th e p o li c e . ” Wh e n c o u n s e l in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e r e late d to H ar r is o n ’ s M arch 2006 assault ar rest and the prosec utor objecte d to releva nce, c ounsel explained:
CO UN SEL : Th e re le va nc e is that a s y ou ’v e se e n fr om pr ior te sti mony , th e re is a long history of Mr. Har

rison’s relationship with the pol ice in which he has—he’s actually the wronge d party who i s g etting a rre sted and he g e ts a rr e ste d f or hittin g his fathe r wh e n h is f a the r i s th e on e tha

t hi t him. His fathe r asks for the end of the pr osecution. The pr osecution pay s no at t en t i o n . He g ets arr ested for assaulting [hi s roommate] when the f

act of the matter is that he’ s the one who is beingassaulted.

. . . . COUNSEL : J udg e, one aspe ct of re levanc e, we believe, is that the State is g oing

to try to show evidenc e of f

light from the police. We believe to rebut or explain the rea son for flig ht in that he’s a lway s been w rong ed by the police a

nd he has no rea son to be lieve the police are g oing to do the rig ht thing by

him. Theref

ore, r eleva

nce is g oing to be for rebuttal.
This does not constitute e vidence to ove rcome the presumption that counsel’s strateg y and methods at trial wer e sound, see Thompson , 9 S. W. 3 d a t 8 1 4 , an d

if an y th in g , w h e nc o n s id e r e d

in th e c o n te xt of the re cord a s a whole points to a re asonable eff ort by counsel to re but anticipated e vid en ce of flig ht. The testimony Har rison’s counse l elicited reg ardingHar rison’s extraneous off

enses and prior ba d acts supporte d his main defensive theory throug hout the t ri al

— co n sent. Counsel soug ht to show that t h e re l at ionship between H arr ison and A.B . was volatile a nd sexual, and that8

the y of te n f ou g ht a nd re c on c ile d by havin g se x. I n h is o pe nin g argume nt, Ha rr iso n’ s c ouns e l to ld the jur y :
Th e e vid e nc e wi ll s ho w that th is r e la tio ns hip wa s a ve ry ho t r e la tio ns hi p. I t w a s a very s ex u al relationship. They both enjoy ed ea ch other sexually

and romantica lly , but they

also wer e ver

y —also foug ht. And they wer e very jealous of eac h other . . . . And you will s ee , wh en the evidence all comes in, that all that ha pp e ne d o n th a t ni g ht i n q ue sti on wa s w hat ha

pp e ne d ti me and

tim e a g a in thr o u g h o u t t

h e w h o le s ix y e ar s , th a t i t w a s a qu e s ti o no f

ma k e - u p s e x.
Couns e l ma de sim ila

r a rgume nts a t the in- c a me ra he ari ng that the tr ia l ju dg e c on du c te d p ur su a nt t o Texas Rule of Evidence 412(c) prior to A.B .’s testimo n y . C ounsel proff ere d that prior sexual conduct be tween H arr ison and A.B . was re levant bec ause “ ever y time they

broke up a

nd had a disag ree ment or something like that they would g et toge ther a

nd have make-up se x and that wa s the way they —that was their r eg ular proc edure .” The se ar g uments show counsel’s attempt to show that the eve nts of April 23, 2006, wer e in conf ormity with Harr ison and A.B .’s history —fig hting followed by

“make -up sex. ” T h e t estimony reg ardingextraneous offe nses and pr ior bad a cts that
c ouns e l e lic ite d f

ro m A.B . co uld re a so na

bly su pp or t this de fe ns ive the or

y by sh ow ingthe vo la til e and violent nature of their r elationship. Thus, Harr ison has not rebutted the pr esumption that counsel’s de cision was the pr oduct of sound trial strateg y , an d we ca nnot conclude that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813-14.

Even if c ounsel’s per formanc e wa s deficie nt, the rec ord does not showthat but for counsel’s actions, the trial outcome would have been differ ent. The rec ord s h o ws o v erw helming evi den ce was pres e nt ed t o t he j ury th at t end ed t o ref

ut e Harr is on ’s o nl y

defe ns e—t hat A.B.
c o n s e n t e d t o s e x u a l i nt e r c o u

r s e w i t h h i m o nA p r i l 2 3 , 2 0 0 6

— an d t h a tc o r r o b o r a t e d A
. B
. ’ s t e s t i m o n y.9

Such evidenc e included: the te stimony of the sexual assault nurse ex am iner (“ SANE”); a body dia g ra m f ro m A .B .’ s SA

NE e xami natio n; p ho tog ra ph s of a br a sio ns on

A. B .’ s f a c e and a rm ; photogr aphs take n o f A. B. on April 23, 2006, found on Har rison’s flash dr ive; testimony from an Austin Pol ice De partment DN A ana ly st that Harr ison was the sourc e of the sper m cell fra ction of A.B .’s SANE examination vag inal swab; the shotg un, testimony from an Austin P olice De partment latent print examiner that Har rison’s fing erpr ints matched t he finge rprints found on the shotg un; and the sh otgun

sh e lls that ha d “ min e ” and A. B .’ s name wr itt e n on the m a s A .B . d e sc ri be d. We o ve rr ule Har rison’s sole issue.
CO NC LU SION

Having overr uled Harri s o n ’s s o l e i s s u e o nap p ea l , we af fi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’s judgme nt of convic tion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 13, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh