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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 449 -CR NO. 03-07-00454- CR

Susa n Ro te n , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D -1-DC -06-30 1882 & D-1-D C-06 -2045 95 HO NORAB LE B RENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Susan Roten was conv ic te d o f in to xic a ti o n ma n s la u gh te r a n d a g gr a v a te d a s s ault based on an open ple a of g uilty
. The court assessed punishment at ten y ear s in prison for ea ch off ense se t to run conc urre ntly . On appe al, Roten contends that she rec eived ineffe ctive assistance of counse l be c a us e he r t ri a l c ouns e l f

a ile d to inf

or m he r t hat th e State ha d o ff

e re d a se nte nc e of

e ig ht y e a rs in pr iso n. We a ff

ir m. Be cause Roten does not c halleng e any aspec t of the finding that she wa s g uilty , we
n e e d n o t d is c u s s th e f

a c ts o f th e u n d e r ly

in go f f e n s e s an d

w il l f o c u s o nw h e th e r

th e r e c o rd supports her c laim that she rec eived inef fec tive assistance of counse l. We e v al u at e cla ims of inef fe cti ve assistanc e of c ounsel ag ainst the standar d set forth in Strickland v. W ashington
. See 46 6 U .S. 66 8, 68 7 ( 19 84 ); He rn an de z v . S tat e , 988 S.W .2d 770, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).2

I n deciding a claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, we must de termine whether an at t orney ’s perf ormanc e wa s d ef

i cient, and if so, whether

that defic iency

prejudice d the def

ense. Strickland , 46 6 U .S. a t 68 7; Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). A n att orney ’s perf ormanc e is defic ient if it falls belo w an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss. Strickland , 46 6 U .S. a t 68 8; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. Deficient per formanc e is prejudicia l when, but for the attorney ’s unprofe ssional conduct, ther e is a re as o n ab le proba bility that the outcome of

the proce eding would have be en diffe rent. St r i ck land , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. A re asonable probability is a probability

sufficie nt to underm i ne conf idence in the outcome. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 812. I n deter mining whe ther a

n attorney ’s per formanc e wa s deficie nt, we apply a strongpresumption that the attorne y ’s conduc t was within the ra

ng e of r easona

ble profe ssional assistance. Id . at 81 4. We r e vie w the e ff e c tiv e ne ss of counse l in light of the totality of the re p re s en t at ion and the cir cumstance s of ea ch ca se. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813.

Fa ilure of de fense counsel to info rm a cr iminal defenda nt of plea of

fer s made by the S t a t e i s ano m i s s i o nt h a tf a l l s b e l o w ano b

j e c t i v e s t an d ar d

o f p r o f e s s i o n a l r e a s o n a

b l e n e s s. Ex parte Lemk

e , 1 3 S. W.3 d 7 91 , 7 95 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). A de fe ns e a tto rn e y in a c ri min a l c a se must a dvise his c lient of a plea barg ain offe r, of whether acc epting the offe r is desirable , and of the defe ndant’s prospe cts of succ ess on appe al, an d t h e def endant must then choose whether to plead g uilty
. Ha nz e lk

a v . S tat e , 6 82 S.W. 2d

38 5, 38 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us ti n 1984 , n o p e t.) . T he se g ua ra nte e s e xist p ri mari ly

to e ns ur e that c lie nts , w ho ty pic a lly are not presen t a t pl e a

dis c us sio ns , are made awa

re of them. Id
. at 38. To prove c ounsel was inef fec tive for f

ailing to infor

m his client3

of an of fer , a def endant must e stablish that counsel acte d unilatera lly in r ejec ting an off er. Harve y
v . S tat e , 97 S.W .3d 162, 168 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2002, pet. re f’d)
.

At the hearing wher e Roten plea ded g uilty , the following exchang es occ urre d among t h e c o u rt , d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l J a m i e B a l a g i a , an d p r o s e c u t o r

J u dy S h i p w ay: THE COURT: Do y ou-all wa nt to have any

discussions before we br ing the jury pa ne l in ? Whe re are we on

thi s? MR. BALAGI A: Well, we have tr ied to work it out, J u d ge, an d evidently our numbers ar e— TH E CO UR T: —w ay

a pa rt ? MR. BALAGI A: Well, ten and five. TH E CO UR T: Th a t’ s n ot t hat f ar a pa rt . MR. BALAGI A: But I

came up from two to g et to five.

. . . . MS. SHI P W A Y : B u t a l o t o f i t i s w h a t o u r o f f i c e f e e l s t h e c o m m u n i t y r e qu i re s in this case, a

nd Ican g o to eig ht, but that’s as low as I can g o. MR. B ALAG I A: I ’m

no t a uth or ize d to se ll at e ig ht, and Iwo uld a dv ise a g a ins t it
.

. . . . TH E CO UR T: Al l r ig ht. So y ’a ll a re a t f ive , y ’a ll a

re a t e ig ht? MS. SHI PWAY : Y e s, ma ’a m. THE COURT: Y’a ll aren’ t that far a part. You- all want me to dec ide? MR. B ALAG I A: Wel l, n ot— the on ly re a so n I a g re e d to thr owthe fi ve ou t— T H E C O U R T : I w o u l dn ’ tkn o w . I w o u l d h a v e t o h a v e a

P S I. M R
. B A L A G IA : —

w a s t o m a k e t h e t e ng o aw ay.4

THE C OU R T : Well, i t did go a way . You have acc omplished that. You have succe eded. MR. BALAGI A: But I thought it should have gone down. I didn’t want to offe r five. Iwould have unde rstood if this was a victim who is unrelated a nd if we ha d a g reat outcry about this situation THE CO UR T: L e t me loo k a t the ind ic tme nt. So the re is no —o ka y , it’ s a deadly —y ou are talking a

bout eig ht with a deadly

wea pon? MS. SHI PWAY : Y e s, ma ’a m. MR. BALAGI A: Well, then we couldn’t g o there nowher e nea r there
.

. . . . T H E C O U R T : W h e r e i s s h e m e n t a l l y? MR. BALAGI A: Istretche d her ha rd to g et five, ve ry

hard.
Sho rt ly the re a ft e r, the c ourt we nt of f the re c or d. Whe n th e re c or d w a s r e su me d, Rot e n p le a de d g uil ty without an ag ree ment as t o sentenc e. Roten filed m otions for ne w trial asse rting that her ple a wa s inv olu nta ry , b ut t he re c or d d oe s not co nta in any he ari ng or a dd iti on a l evi de nc e c on c e rn ingthat c la im
or the c la im o f i ne ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. The re cord doe s not support Roten’s claim of ineff ec t i v e assi stance . The
rec ord is silen t as t o whether the eig ht-y ear

offe r had be en made to Roten or her c ounsel befor e this hearing . We note, howeve r, that her counsel’s statement of the pa rties’ re spective of

fer s on
se nte nc ing

—“ te n a nd fi ve ” —c ou

ple d w iththe pr os e c uto r’ s sub seq uen t st a te me nt— “ Ic an g o to eig ht”—is more consistent with the hea ring being the first time the possibili ty of an e ight- y ear term
wa s men tio ne d to Rote n’ s cou ns e l. Hi s subs e qu e nt state me nts —“ I ’m no t autho ri zed to se ll at e ig ht,
and Iwo uld a dv ise a g a ins t it ” and

“ Istr e tc he d h e r h ard

to g e t f ive , v e ry hard ”—h int

a t a5

lim itatio n o n h is a

uth or ity to c on sid e r any

thi ng a bo ve fi ve y e ars and

c le arl y sh owhim

a dv isi nghis client on the re cord.

Whether the State ha d mentioned the ei gh t -y ea r off er a nd Roten’s counsel ha d not told he r of such an offe r befor e the hear ing loses signific ance beca use the re cord pla inly

shows that Roten was prese nt in the courtroom during these discussions a nd was, there fore , info rm ed o f t he possible eig ht-y ear

offe r and a dvised ag ainst acc epting it. Nothing in the record indicates that Roten did any thi ngto i nd ic a te in te re st i n p le a din g g uil ty wi th a re c omm e nd a tio n o f a

n e ig ht- y e ar t e rm . Roten has not shown that her c ounsel was other wise ineff ective. On thi s r e c or d, Rot e n h a s n ot pr ov e n tha t her c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e wa s d e fi c ie nt. Her intimations from the discussions set out above that her c ounsel did not c ommunicate an of fer
o f ane ig h t- y e ar

s e n te n c e ar e w e a k , c o n tr ar y to th e r e c o r d , an d

d o n o t o v e r c o me th e strong presumption that counsel’s pe rfor mance was a dequate
. Even if we wer e to a ssume that her c ounsel fa ile d to c omm

un ic a te an e arl ie r e ig ht- y e ar of fe r, we c on c lud e that sh e c an sh ow no ha rm be c a us e sh e wa s p re se nt i n o pe n c ourt wh e n th e e ig ht- y e ar of

fe r wa s disc us se d an d did not hin g to i nd ic a te any interest in it before pleadingg uilty without a rec ommended sente nce. Affir med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 15, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh