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

NO. 03-04-00690- CR

F r e de r ic k Da nie l Bo swe ll, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 55939 , HO NORAB LE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant F rede rick Da

niel Bo s we l l pleade d g uilty to ag g ravated sexual assault of a child pursuant to a plea barg ain l imiti ng his punishment to no more than thirty y ear s in prison. See Te x. Pe n. Cod e An

n. § 2 2. 02 1 ( Wes t Su

pp . 2 00 4- 05 ). Af

te r h e ari ngtest im on y

re le va nt t o sentenc ing, the cour t assessed a twenty -five y ear

prison term. The c ourt ce rtified that it g ave Boswe ll permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2)( B)
.

Bos w e ll ’ s c o u

r t- a p p o in te d a tt o r n e y f il e d a b r ief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The brief m eets the r equire ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by pres ent inga

pr of e ssi on a l e va luatio n o f t

he re c or d d e mon str a tin g why the re are no argua

ble g rounds to be adva

nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 488 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 80 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W. 2d 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Jack son v.2

Sta te , 485 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). B os we ll f

ile d a pr o s e br ie f. He ra ise s se ve ra l is su e s, mos t c e nte ri ngon or re late d to his c la im that hi s tr ia l c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e . B os we ll c on te nd s:

• His attorney failed to a dequate ly investigate the alleg ations ag ainst him, did not c a ll ava ila

ble be ne fi c ia l w itn e sse s, and wa s g e ne ra lly

un pr e pa re d f or tr ia l.

• The prose cutor’s que st i o n i n g of witnesses a nd arguments to the court we re ba se d o n li e s and

mis re pr e se ntatio ns of

the fa c ts, and that his a tto rn e y fa ile d to ob je c t.

• He wa s denied the r ight to testify in his own behalf.

• His g uilty

plea wa s the result of f

ear , coer cion , b ad advice, and illness, and he nc e inv olu

nta ry . I nd e e d, a

pp e lla nt a sse rt s that his me nta l state wa s su c h a s to re nd e r h im i nc omp e te nt f or tr ia l.

• Th e punis hme nt h e re c e ive d e xce e ds that im po se d in sim ila r c a se s. To preva il on a claim of inef fec tive assistance of counse l, an appe llant must show that
c ouns e l ma de su c h s e ri ou s e rr or s that he wa s no t fu nc tio nin g e ff

e c tiv e ly a s c ouns e l and

that th e se
err ors pre judiced th e ap p el lant’s def ense to such a

deg ree that he wa s deprived of a fa ir trial. See Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); He rn an de z v . S tate , 988 S.W .2d 770, 771-72 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); He rn an de z v . S tate , 72 6 S.W. 2d 53 , 57 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); and see Mo or e v . S

tate , 6 94 S.W. 2d

52 8, 53 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ); O’ Ha ra v . S tate , 837 S.W .2d 139, 143 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

19 92 , p e t. r e f’ d) . In r e viewi ng a c la im o f i ne ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e , w e mus t ind ulg e a str on g pr e sumpt ion

that c ouns e l’ s c on du c t f e ll w ith in t

he w id e range o f r e a so na ble profe ssional assistance. Se eJ ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). To
overc ome this presumption, any alleg ation of ineffe ctiveness must be firmly founded in the rec ord3

and th e re co rd m ust affirmatively demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Ma lle tt v . S tate , 65 S.W .3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). I n most cases, the r ecor d on direc t a ppeal is undeveloped and ca nnot adequately

ref lect the motives behind trial c ounsel’s ac tions. Id
. Most of Boswe ll’s alleg ations are based on fac tual asser tions that are not supported by the appe llate re cord ( the pro se brief and its attachme nts are not e vidence ). Althoug h the re cord does re flec t that a defe nse witness lear ned only on the day

of trial that she w as g oing to testify , and that a per son subpoenae d by the defense was not called to testify , these facts alone do not warr ant the c on c lus ion

that c ouns e l wa s no t pr e pa re d to r e nd e r r e a so na

ble pr of e ssi on a l a ssi sta

nc e . We a lso note that some of Boswe ll’s f actua l assertions ar e contr adictory , and that other s are contra ry to the
rec ord. Boswe ll c an best pursue his cla ims in a post-conviction habea s corpus proc eeding
. See T e x. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t. 11.07 (West 2005). We ha ve revie wed the rec ord, counsel’s brief, and the pr o se brief . We ag ree that the
a pp e a l is fr ivo lou s and

wi tho ut m e ri t. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: Jul y

8, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh