### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 21 -C R

______________________________ J ARED HEATH GAI

NES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the Six th J udicial District Court

L amar County , Texas Trial Court No. 20988

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON J are d Heath Gaines pled g uilty to mur der, admitting that, afte r an evening of drinking beer and whiskey

wit h h i s b ro t her Jeffe ry , Gaines stabbe d his brother to death. Gaines' sole defe nsive strateg y was to see k a re duced se ntence by claiming , during the punishment phase of trial, that he acte d under the influence of sudden passion arising out of an adequate ca use. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(a) (Ve rnon 2003). The jury did not ag ree with his claim, and Gaines wa s sentence d to t hir ty y e a rs ' imp ri so nme nt. Ga i n e s ' s o l e c l a i m o n a

p p e a l i s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a

u s e h e f a i l e d to ob je c t to the State ' s re pe a te d re fe re nc e s to Gai ne s' fa ilure to say any thi ng a bo ut sud de n p a ssi on

in his int e rv ie ws wi th i nv e sti g a tor s. Ga ine s a rgue s th a t th os e re fe re nc e s were imp ro pe r c omm e nts about his post-a

rre st silenc e in violation of his F ifth Amendment rig ht to be fre e fr o m co m p el l ed self-inc rimination—and that his tria l co u n s el was ine ffe ctive in not objecting to them. But, since Gaines chose not to exercise his r ight to r emain silent post-a rre st, w e aff

irm the judg ment of the trial

c ourt
. Jef

fe ry ' s par tia lly de c omp os e d b od

y wa s r e c ov e re d f

ro m th e c ra

wl sp a c e un de r h is p a re nts ' mobile home af

ter e y ewitness Z abrina

Bow ers, Ga ines' g irlfriend, spoke with authorities. To authorities, B ower s descr ibed the eve nts she witnessed that evening

. At the end of the eve ning of dr ink ing , G a ine s and

his br oth e r e ng a g e d in a heate d fig ht, in wh ic h th e br oth e r " wh oo pe d" Ga ine s. After the fig ht, the brother called B ower s a " slut" and a "f __ing bitch a

nd a whor e" and thre atene dMiranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 3 to f or c e B ow e rs to g ive him

or a l se x af

te r G a ine s w e nt to sle e p. Th e br oth e r t he n p ro c e e de d to his p ar en t s ' b ed ro o m an d

"p as s edo u t
. " H av i n g o v erh ea rdt h e b ro t h er 's wo rd s , Bo we rs b ec am e up s et and sta rt e d c ry ing . T he n, a c c or din g to G a ine s, a su dd en pas sio n o ve rc a me him . A ft e r B ow e rs tol d Ga ine s th a t th e br oth e r' s w or ds hurt he r f e e lin g s, Ga ine s g ra

bb e d a ste a k k nif e , e nte re d h is p a re nts ' bedroom whe re Jeffe ry

was slee ping, a

nd stabbed him to death. Af te r Ga ine s wa s p ro vid e d h is Miranda wa rn ing s, he wi lli ng ly ta lke d wi th L a mar C ounty 1 sheriff ' s investigator J oe David Tuttle. During the initial interview lasting approximately one and one-ha lf hours, Ga ines talked with Tuttle conc erning the events surrounding J eff ery ' s death, star

ting by de nyinginv olv e me nt b ut t he n p ro vid ingmuc h th e same de ta ils a s B ow e rs . During cross- ex am i n at i o no f G ai n es ' fa t h er , t h e S t at e e l i ci t edt es t i m o ny that Gaines ha d never

me nti on e d s ud de n p a ssi on wh e n dis cus si ng the c ri me duri ngja ilh ou se vis its . L a te r, wh ile c ro ssexamining Gaine s, the State ref err ed to the fac t that G aines did not mention sudde n passion during

c us tod ia l in te rv ie ws in s ta tin g , " fi rs t ti me we he ard thi s ang e r, un c ontr ol lab le ang e r, imm e diate influence of sudden pa ssion, was rig ht before trial started." Gaines c onten d s h i s counsel wa s ine ff e c tiv e be c a

us e he did no t obje c t to the pr os e c uto r' s com me nts and qu e sti on s r e g ard ingGa ine s' post-arr est silence c oncer ning the subject of sudde n passion. Gaines be ars the bur den of pr oving, by a p re p o n d erance of the e vidence , that counsel wa s i n ef fective. Can no n v . S

tat e , 6 6 8 S. W. 2 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 3 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 8 4 )

. A n y a ll e g ation of4

ineffe ctiveness m u s t be firmly founded in the r ecor d. Go od sp e e d v . S

tat e , 187 S.W .3d 390, 392 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 00 5) ; T ho mp so n v . S

tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). To evaluate claims of inef

fec tive assistance of

c o u n s e l, w e a p ply the two-prong ed Strickland test handed down by the United States S u preme Court. See Strick land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Fi rs t , Gaines must show that counse l's pe rfor mance fell below a

n objective standa

rd of

rea sonablene ss when conside ring preva iling prof essional norms. Id. at 687–88. Second, Ga ines must show that the def

icient per formanc e dama g ed his defe nse. Id. Fa ilure t o satisfy either pr ong of the Strickland test is fata l to the claim. J au be rt v . S

tat e , 74 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We evaluate counsel' s perf ormanc e while takinginto consi d er ation the totality of repr esentation a

nd the particula

r circ umstances of

this case. Thompson , 9 S. W.3 d at 81 3; Ex pa rte Felton , 8 1 5 S
. W
. 2 d

7 3 3 , 7 3 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 1 ). T h er e i s a s t ro n g p re s u mp t i o n t h at co u n s el 's conduct f ell within the wide ra

ng e of r easona

ble profe ssional a ssistance. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689; Ton g v . S tat e , 25 S.W. 3d

70 7, 71 2 ( Te x. Cr im App . 200 0) . T he re fo re , w e wi ll n ot u se hin ds ig ht t o second guess counse l's tria l strateg y . Ha ll v . S tat e , 161 S.W .3d 142, 152 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. re f' d). Once an ac cused is advise d of his or her Miranda ri g hts , a nd inv ok es th e ri ght to r e ma in silent, the Fif

th Amendment to the United States Constitut ion preve nts the State from using that silence to impeach him or he r. Szma le c v . S tat e , 92 7 S.W. 2d 21 3, 21 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 1996, pet. re f' d). The tr i al rec ord indicate s that, even a fter G aines wa s g iven a MirandaThe fact that G a ine s d id n ot c ho os e to r e ma in s ile nt d ist inguis he s th is c a se fr om Hall v. 2 Sta te , 161 S.W .3d 142 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. re f' d), and

Me nd oz a v . S tat e , 959 S.W .2d 321, 323 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, pet. re f' d). 5 wa rn ing , h e fr e e ly

sp ok e wi th i nv e sti g a tor s and did no t inv ok e his ri g ht to re ma in sil e nt. Thus , th is 2

re c or d d oe s n ot r e ve a l th e c la ime d e rr or of c ouns e l. I n addition to testify ing on dir ect e x amination that he was ang ry and enr ag ed at his brother , Ga ine s o pe ne d th e do or

to t he Sta te ' s l in e of que sti on ingwh e n, in a n atte mpt to s tr e ng the n h is sudden passion def

ense, he testified that he told officers a bout the way

his brother tre ated him and the fight they had. At that point, the S tate was entitled to question "the vera city of his exculpatory st ory pres ent ed at tr ial ." Id. at 2 1 7

– 1 8 (c i t i n g Bell v. State, 867 S.W .2d 958, 962 (Tex. App.—Waco 19 9 4 , n o p e t
. ) ( d e f

e n d an t o p e n e d d o o r t o i mp e a c h m e n t o n h i s p o s t
- ar r e s t s i l e n c e i n a t t e mp t ing to streng then def

ense throug h questions about his post-arre st statements to police). The re cord does n o t reve al why trial counsel f

ailed to object to the State' s comments and qu e s ti o n s r e g ar d in g p o s t- ar r e s t s il e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l' s f a il u r e to o b

je c t c o u ld h a v e b e e n a part of his trial strateg y . See G oodspeed , 187 S.W .3d at 393–94. Sever al re asonable explanations

a pp e ar. Sin c e Ga ine s d id not in vo ke hi s rig ht t o r e ma in s ile nt, the State did no t vi olate his F if

th Amendment rig hts. Even if this rig ht had bee n invoked, Gaine s' post-arr est fa i lure to mention

su dd e n p a ssi on

to o ff ic e rs wa s a dmi ssi ble be c a us e he te sti fi e d a

bo ut state me nts he ma de to t he m in his direct testimony for the purpose of establishing his e x culpatory defe nse. F inally , the information the State soug ht to establish —that Gaines ha d not mentioned sudden passion bef ore tria l—had6

alre ady been established t hroug h the testimony of Ga ines' fathe r. Se e Do tso n v . S tat e , 146 S.W .3d 285 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2004, pet. ref

' d) (State' s questions to de fenda nt for fa ilure to mention

e xc u l p a t o r

y d e f e n s e d u r i n g j a i l h o u s e c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y d i d n o t vi ola te
acc used' s rig ht to remain silent). Counsel's actions fell wit hin the rang e of reasona ble profe ssional assistance

. Be cause we de termine that Ga ines' counsel a cted r easona bly , there is no need to addre ss the second pr ong of the Strickland te st w hic h d e te rm ine s whe the r c ouns e l' s e rr or s we re so se ri ou s a s to de pr ive Ga ine s o f a

fa ir tr ia l. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 30, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 31, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh