C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

J UAN NO GUEZ -SAAVEDRA, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 27 -C R

Appea l from the 366th District Court of Col lin County , T e xas (TC# 366-80774-07)

O P I N I O N J uan Noguez-Saave dra a

ppeals his convictions of se x ual assault of a child, indece ncy

of a
c hil d b y c on ta c t, a

nd ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d b y e xpos ur e . App e lla

nt w a s se nte nc e d to 7 ye ars ’ imprisonment for the sexual assault of a c hild conviction and 5 y ear s’ imprisonment for the indece ncy with a child by

contac t conviction. On the jury ’s re commendation, the tria l court suspended Appe llant’s 10-y ear prison sentenc e for

the indece ncy

with a child by

exposure offe nse, in favor

of 10 y ear s’ community

supervision. Aff

irmed. On J anuar

y 15, 2007, the Plano Fire Depa rtment responde d to a re sidence wher e a fourtee n-y ear -old g irl repor ted beingsexually

assaulted. The victim identified Appellant as he r attacke r. She re ported that Appe llant lured her to his apartment and the n took her to the bedroom, whe re he pushed her on the bed, slappe d her, a nd sexually

assaulted he r. Appe llant was indicted f

or sexual assault of a c hild, indecenc y with a child by

contac t, and exposure with a
c h i l d r e l at e d t o th e a s s a

u l t . Ap p e l l an tp l e a d

n o tg u i l ty an d

w a s c o n v i c t e d

o f th e c h ar g e s b y a-2-

j ur y. On appe al, Appellant r aises two issues. In I ssue One, A ppellant alleg es he w as denie d eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel at trial, by trial counsel’ s failure to object to the admission of the translation of Appe llant’s phone conve rsation with the victim. I n I ssue Two, Appe llant contends trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive by failingto pursue a motion for ne w trial. We will address e ach issue in turn. We reviewclaims of inef fec tive assistance of counse l under a two-prong ed test. F irst, an appellant must establish counsel’ s perf ormanc e fe ll below an objec tive standard of
rea sonablene ss under pre vailing pr ofessional norms. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 69 3- 94 , 1 04 S.Ct . 2 05 2, 20 67 -6 8, 80 L .E d. 2d 67 4 ( 19 84 ); Ma lle t v . S

tate , 65 S.W .3d 59, 62-3 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Second, the a ppellant must establish that counsel’s def icient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the de fense
. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. at 20 64 ; Jack son v. Sta te , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Prejudice is established by a showingthat there is a rea sonable proba bility that but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the proce edingwould have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct. at 20 68 ; Mallet , 65 S.W. 3d at 62 -3 . Are a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity is a pr ob a bil ity su ff ic ie nt t o und e rm ine c on fi de nc e in the outcome. When we re view a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance, we must indul g e a strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls withi n the wide r ang e of r easona ble, profe ssional assistance, a nd the appellant must overc ome the pre sumption t hat the cha lleng ed conduc t can be considere d sound trial strategy . Jack

son , 8 77 S.W. 3d

at 77 1. Any

a lle g atio n o f i ne ff

e c tiv e ne ss m

us t be fi rm ly founded in the r ecor d and demonstrated by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. See Thompson v ,-3-

Sta te , 9 S.W .3d 808, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). The re cord on dire ct appe al will ge nera lly be insufficient to show that counse l’s repr esentation was so defic ient as to meet the f irst prongof the Strickland analy sis because the re asonable ness of c ounsel’s choic es often involve f acts that do not appea

r in the appe llate re cord. Ry lan de r v . S tate , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In I ssue One, A

ppellant ar g ues he w as denie d eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel at trial due to trial counsel’s f

ailure to objec t to the admission of a translation of a police-r ecor ded phone
conver sation the victim had with Appellant and c ounsel’s “f ailure to a sk any

questions reg arding th e i n d i v i d

u al
. . . ” w h o tra n s l at edth e r ec o rd i n g. Duri ngthe inv e sti g atio n, Plano Pol ic e De pa rtme nt D e te c tiv e s u se d a

“ pr e te xt pho ne c a ll” to gather e vidence . Duringa pre text call, the victim ca lls the suspect from a police telephone wh ic h r e c or ds the c onve rs atio n. In th is c a se , th e vic timc a lle d App e lla nt a nd c on fr on te d h im
a bo ut t he a ssa ult . T he State int

ro du c e d a Spa nis h- to- En g lis h tr ans c ri pti on of the ph on e c a ll i nto evidenc e throug h the investig atingoffice r. The tr anslator did not testify at trial. Tria l counsel did not object to the transcr ipt’s admission. During the phone ca ll, Appellant expressed re g ret
a bo ut what ha

pp e ne d to the vic tim
. Wit hout citation to supporting leg al authority , appellate counsel c oncludes that ther e is no possible strateg ic re ason to “a llow that tape in.” How ever , without the benef it of a re cord of

trial counsel’s de cision-makingproce ss reg ardingthe translation, Appe llant cannot over come the presumption that trial counsel’ s perf ormanc e fe ll below an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss. See Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. To the e x tent Appellant ar g ues, this case repr esents one of the
rar e instance s where counsel’s pe rfor mance was so egreg ious that it amounted to ineffec tive-4-

assistance pe r se , h e ha s f a ile d to of

fe r a ny le g a l su pp or t so ho ldi ng , a

nd ha s f a ile d to demonstrate how

he wa s prejudice d by

counsel’s ina ction. Se e id . at 813-14. Ac cording ly , we
overr uled I ssue One. In his second issue, Appe llant argues he w as denie d eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel beca use trial counse l failed to file a motion for new tria l, which may have le d to the production of a re c or d whic h d e mon str ate d tr ia l c ouns e l’ s d e fi c ie nc ie s. As in I ssu e On e , th e br ie f i s d e vo id of citation to leg al authority supporting A

ppellant’s ar g ument on this point . Howeve r in the int e re st o f j us tic e , w e wi ll a dd re ss A pp e lla nt’ s a rgume nt. Whe n, a s in

the c a se he re , a

de fe nd ant i s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l du

ri ngtr ia l, a

re butta ble presumption arises that the same c ounsel continued to ade quately repr esent the de fenda

nt during all critica l stag es of the pr ocee dings, inc luding the time f or filinga motion for new trial. See Coo k s v . S tate , 240 S.W .3d 906, 911 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). In addition, even in a c ase where an
a pp e lla nt w a s a ble to e sta

bli shhe wa s d e pr ive d o f e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l du

ri ngthi s stag e, the de privation rema ins subject to a har mless error

analy sis. Id
. In this inst ance , the trial cour t pronounce d Appellant’s se ntence J anuar y 29, 2008. Ap p e l l an tf

i l e d a t i m e l y pro se notice of a

ppeal on F ebrua

ry 27, 2008. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.2(a) (1). Appe llate counse l was appointed by the trial cour

t on Febr uary 29, 2008, one day afte r the de adline for

filing a motion for new tria l. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 21.4(a). Appe llant has not offe red e vidence to support his conclusion that trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive duringthe motion for new tria l time period. Absent such e vidence , Appellant ca nnot overc ome the pre sumption t hat counsel’s r epre sentation was suff icient. See Cook, 240 S.W .3d at 911. I ssue Two is over ruled. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d b oth of Ap pe lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-5-

November

18, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)