i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 59 1- CR Wil liam C. SCHILL ING , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7994 Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Ste ve n C. Hi lbi g , Just ic e , c on c ur ri ngin t he jud g me nt o nly Deliver ed and F iled: September 2, 2009 AFF I RMED Wil liam Schilli ng appea ls his convictions f o r f o u r c o unts of indece ncy

with a child by

contac t and six counts of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild. The jury assessed Schilling ’s punishment at 20 y ear s confine ment for each count of i ndece ncy with a child by contac t and 50 y ear s confineme nt for e ach c ount of ag g ravated sexual a ssault of a c hild. On appea l, Schilli ng claims: (1) the tria l court
err ed in deny

ing his motion for dire cted ve rdict; (2) the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to support04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

1 ... T o prot ect t he pri vac y of t he part i es i n t hi s cas e, we i dent i f y t he com pl ai nan t by he r i ni t i al s an d her mo t her a n d sib ling s b y the ir fi rs t na m e s o n ly.

- 2- any of his convictions; (3) a rguments by

the prosec utor during the punishment stag e of the trial de pr ive d h im o f a

fa ir and imp art ia l puni sh me nt pr oc e e din g ; (4) he is en tit le d to a ne w tri a l be c a

us e the State fa iled to disclose evidenc e fa vorable to him; and (5) he was de nied ef fec tive assistance of
c ouns e l. We a ff

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

B ACKG ROUND S ch i l l i n g and De bbie S. married in 1994, a nd had one c hild togethe r on F ebrua ry 2, 1996, Kayla. 1 When the couple mar ried, Debbie already had two children from a prior relationship, C ody and the complainant, B.S. Schilling leg ally adopted Cody

and B .S. in 1996. I n April 2004, Schilling and De bbie sepa

rate d afte r appr ox imately 10 y ear s of marr iag e. Trial testimony

indicated that whe n the couple se parated, Schilli n g beg an having ina pp ro pr iate se xua l c on ta c t w ithB .S. Ov e r the c ours e of tw o y e ars , Sc hil lin g tou c he d B .S. ’s pr ivate parts on multiple occa sions, and eng ag ed in vag inal, oral, a nd anal s ex with the child numerous times. Chil d Protective Servic es (“ CPS ”) be g an investig ating S ch i l l i n g in Febr uary 2006 afte r
rec eiving an anony

mous tip t hat Schilling wa s sexually abusing B.S. CPS investigators spoke with B .S. to deter mine whether

Schilling was se x ually

abusing her, but B.S. denied a

ny inappropriate contac t with Schill ing. CPS placed B .S. and her sibling s in the
car e of Schilling ’s mother pe nding the results of its investigation. Afte r about a wee k in Schilli ng ’s mother’s car e, Debbie came and took he r children f rom Schilling’s mother. B .S. made an outcr y of abuse a g ainst Schilli ng following Debbie’ s removal of the childre n from Schilling’ s mother.04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 3- B.S. under

went a sex ual assault ex amination, and she r eporte d to the examiner that Schilling had bee n sexually

abusing her f

or we ll ov er a y ea r. S chilling wa s subsequently indicted for committing indece ncy

with a child by contac t and aggravated s exual assault of a child. He pleade d not guilty and proc eede d to a jury

trial. The jury found Schilling g uilty of four counts of indec ency with a child by

contac t and six counts of ag g ravated sex u al as s ault of a c hild. Schill ing w as sentenc ed to 20 y ear s confine ment for e ach c ount of indece ncy with a child by

contac t and 50 y ear s confine ment for eac h count of ag g ravated sexual a ssault of a child, with the sentenc es t o run
concur rently . The trial c ourt denied Schilling ’s motion for new tr ial, and this appea l followed. S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE Schilling claims the trial c ourt err ed in denying his motion for directed verdict as to Count VI o f th e in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h a ll e g e d h e inte n ti o n a ll y

an d k n o w in g ly c a u s e d th e f e ma le s e xu al
o r g an o f B
. S. to c o n ta c t h is mo u th o n o r a b o u t Au g u st 30, 2004. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 2 2. 02 1( a )( 1) (B )( iii ), (2 )( B ) (V e rn on 20 03 ) (p ro vid ing a pe rs on c omm its a g g ra vate d se xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d if he int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly c a us e s the se xua l or g an o f a c hil d to c on ta c t or

pe ne tr a te the mouth, anus, or sexual org an of another person, including the ac tor, and the c hild is y oung er tha n fourtee n y ear s of ag e). Acomplaint about a tria l court’s fa ilure to g rant a motion for direc ted ver dict is a challeng e to the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence
. Can ale

s v . S tate , 9 8 S. W. 3 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2003). When review ing the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence , we c onsider whe ther, a fter vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht mos t favo ra

ble to the pr os e c uti on , any ra tio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld have f ound the essential e lem en t s of the off ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 44 3 U .S. 30 7, 31 9 ( 19 79 ); Cla y ton v . S tate , 2 35 S.W. 3d

77 2, 77 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). “ Th is standard a ccounts for

the fa ctfinder ’s duty

‘to resolve conflicts in the testimon y , t o weig h the04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 4- evidenc e, and to dr aw r easona ble infer ence s from basic f acts to ultimate fac ts.’” Clayton , 235 S
. W
. 3 d at 7 7 8 (q u o t i n g Jack

son , 443 U.S. at 3 1 9 ). Thus, “in ana ly zing leg al suffic iency , we ‘dete rmine whe ther the n ec es s ary i n fe re n ce s ar e r ea s o n ab l e b as edu p o nt h e c o mb i n edan d

cu mulative forc e of all the evidence when vi ewe d in the light most favor able to the ve rdict.’” Id. An a pp e llate
c ourt ’s “ re vie w o f ‘ a ll o f t he e vid e nc e’ inc lud e s e vid e nc e that w a s p ro pe rl y and imp ro pe rl y admitted.” Id. Sc hil lin g argue s B .S. fa ile d to pr ov ide any te sti mony

re g ard ingthe tou c hin g of his mouth t o
any pa rt of he r s e xua l or g an a s w a s r e qu ir e d b y Count V Iof

the ind ic tme nt. H e no te s th a t B .S. t es tified at leng th about the var ious instances of se x ual abuse he purpor tedly committed, but provided no testimony

sug g esting he conta cted he r sexual org an with his mou t h at any time. Although the jury

may not have he ard B .S. provide an y d i rect testimony as to the touchingof Schilling’ s mouth to her sexual org an, the jury did hear testimony

from Dr . Nanc y

Kellog g , a p ed i at ri ci an an d

t h e me d i ca l d i re ct o r fo r C h i l d S af e, i n d i ca t i n g s u ch co n t ac t o cc u rr ed
. Dr
. Ke l l o gg indicated B .S. complained of the spe cific se x ual contac t alleg ed in Count VI of t he indictment during B.S.’s sexual assault examination following her outcry . Dr. Ke lloggnoted B .S. reported dur ing he r examination that S chilling made her ha ve sex with him and that “[ h ] i s bottom private are a . . . touched [her] bottom pr ivate are a . . . inside.” When B.S. wa s asked dur ing he r examination whether Schilling had c ontacted he r “a ny wher e else,” B.S. responde d that Schilling had also used his fing ers and mouth to contact he r vag ina as we ll. A rational trier of fac t could deter mine Schilling committed the of fe ns e a lle g e d in

Count V Iof

the ind ic tme nt ba se d up on Dr
. Ke llo g g ’s te sti mony a lon e . T hu s, afte r re viewing all the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, we conc lude a r ational04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 5- jur y c ou ld h a ve fo un d b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t Sc hil lin g c omm itt e d a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult as alleg ed in Count VIof the indictment. Schilling’s se cond issue is overr uled. Sc hil lin g a lso argue s th e e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o su

pp or t any of his c on vic tio ns . When consideringa fa ctual suff iciency challeng e, we look at the evidenc e in a neutra l light g iving almost c omplete defe renc e to the jury ’s deter minations of cre dibilit y . Lan c on v . S tate , 253 S.W .3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We rever se only if the evidence supportingthe ver dict is so weak that the ver dict seems cle arly wrongand manife stly

unjust or if the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is outweig hed by the gre at weight and preponde ranc e of the available evidenc e. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 414-15 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). Acc ording to Schilli ng , the evidenc e is fac tually insufficient to support the jury ’s ver dict on all counts bec ause B .S.’s trial testimony was inconsistent and unr eliable. I n support of his contention tha t B
. S. ’ s te s ti mo n y

w a s in c o n s is te n t a

n d u n r e li a b le , Sc h il li n g c it e s B
. S. ’ s c o n f li c ti n g te s ti mony
conce rning the details and dates of her sexual encounters with him. He also points out that the jury he ard te sti mony

ind ic a tin g B .S. ha d a poo r re putatio n for ho ne sty , an d note s that B. S. a lle g e dly tol d
sever al individuals he had not abuse d her. L astly , Schilling dire cts our attention to the fa ct that B .S. ’s hy me n w a s st ill int a c t de sp ite a lle g e dly havin g se xua l in te rc ours e wi th h im mult ipl e tim e s. I n the instant c ase, B .S. provided detailed te stimony conce rning Schilling’s abuse , including testimony indicating Schilling touched he r private parts an d engag ed in interc ourse with her on multipl e occ asions. The jury was in the best position to evaluate t he credibility of the witnesse s and was entitl ed to resolve any cre dibilit y issues ag ainst Schilling. See Lancon , 25 3 S. W.3 d at 70 5; see als o S tog ie ra v . S

tate , 191 S.W .3d 194, 196 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (r ecognizi ng the jury evaluates the cr edibility

and deme anor of

wi tnesses and de termines the we ight a ffor ded04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 6- contra dicting te stimony). The jur y ap p are ntly

believed B .S.’s testimony conce rning Schilling’s repe ated se x ual abuse of her, and we must defer to this credibility

deter mination by

the fa ctfinder
. Whe n a ll o f t

he e vid e nc e is v ie we d in a ne utr a l li g ht, we c ann ot s ay the ju ry ’s fi ndingis c le arl y wrongor manife stly

unjust, or that it is ag ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Schilling’s six th issue is overruled. I M P ROP E R J URY A RGUMENT Schilling claims ar g uments by the prosec utor duringthe punishment stag e of the trial deprive d him of a fa ir and impartial punishm en t p ro ce ed ing. H e complains a bout the following argument and, in par

ticular, the pr osecutor’ s statements descr ibing pr obation as “a joke”: And they want t o talk to y ou about probation. Folks, probation [is] a joke
. Pro b at i o n means that [Schilli ng ] gets to g et to the par king g ara g e bef

ore you do today . What d o es i t mean? He ha s to report a couple of

times to his probation office r[.] He c an even phone in occa sionally
. He can go to the Oli ve Garden, he can g o to the mov ie s, he c an g o any wh e re he wa

nts a s lo nga s h e ’s no t c a

ug ht. He g e ts to go to Christmas and f

amily outings a nd Easter and any thing e lse he wa

nts to do. It’s a joke

. He g e ts t o w a lk t he str e e ts. (e mph a sis a dd e d) . Af

te r the pr os e c uto r’ s se c on d s tate me nt d e sc ri bin g pr ob a tio n a s a jok e , d e fe ns e counsel lodg ed an obje ction to the prosec ution’s description of probation as a joke. Although the prosec utor made two ne arly identical stateme nts descr ibing pr obation as a joke during his c losing argument, defe nse counsel did not lodge an objec tion to the first statement made by the prosec utor. The Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure require that all objections be timely , see T EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (a )( 1) , w hic h me ans the ob je c tio n mu st b e ma de at the e arl ie st p os sib le opportunity
. Tur

ne r v . S tate , 805 S.W .2d 423, 431 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1 991). De fense counsel’s objectio n to the second state ment by the prosec utor does not satisfy the timeliness require ment of Rule 33.1(a)
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) ; se e als o J on es v . S tate , 9 0 0 S. W. 2 d

3 9 2 , 3 9 7 ( T e x.04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 7- App.—San Antonio 1995, pet. re f’d) (conc luding a ppellant’s objec tion to prosecutor ’s ar g ument not tim e ly be c a us e he did no t ob je c t to e arl ie r us e of te rm “ se x slave ” ); Sm ith v . S tate , 842 S.W .2d 401, 40 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or

t Worth 19 92 , pe t. re f’ d) (c on c lud ing that w he n p ro se c uto r m a ke s tw o n e arl y ide nti c a l st ate men ts , o bje c tio n to se c on d s tate me nt u nti me ly if de fe nd ant d oe s n ot o bje c t to fi rs t statemen t)
. Sc hil lin g ha s th us fa ile d to pr e se rv e his c omp la int fo r a pp e llate re vie w. Ev e n if

thi s
c omp la int we re pr e se rv e d, the pr os e c uto r’ s d e sc ri pti on of pr ob a tio n a s a

“ joke, ” whe n view e d in context, is a plea for law enfor ceme nt and thus a prope r ar ea of argument. Se e J

ac k so n v . S tate , 17 S.W .3d 664, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (describing plea f or law e nforc ement as one of four g ener al
are as of pr oper jury

argument). Schilling’s third issue is overr uled. B RADY V I OL AT I ON Schilling ar g ues he is entitled to a ne w trial bec ause the State failed to disclose e vidence f a v o r a b l e t o h i m a s i s r e qu i r e d

b y Brady v. M

aryland , 373 U. S. 8 3 ( 19 63 ). Sc hil lin g ’s Brady c la im
conce rns Child P rotec tive Service s rec ords containinginformation re lating to the c omplainant and her f amily , which he a lleg es would have ai ded his defe nse and a llowed him to impeach the
cre dibilit y

of t he complainant and her mother at trial. Acc ording to Schilli ng , “[t] he re cords dumped on the def ense attorney s half wa

y throug h the t rial consisted of mor e than 200 pa g es of infor mation that c on tr a dic te d a lmo st a ll o f D e bb ie and [B .S. ’s ] t est imo ny .” B y no t ha vin g an o pp or

tun ity to pr e se nt t he re c or ds to t

he jur y , Sc hil lin g c la ims the State “ wa s a ble to pr e se nt an un tr

ue pic tur e to the jury .” Under Brady , the suppression by the prosec ution of evidenc e fa vorable to the defe ndant violates due proc ess if the evidenc e is material either to guilt or punishment, without reg ard to the g ood or bad f

aith of the prose cution. Ha rm v . S tate , 183 S.W .3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 8- When p re v i o u s l y

withheld evidenc e is disclosed duringthe g uilt/i nnocenc e phase of trial, a defe ndant has a

n opportunity

to reque st a continuanc e. S c h i l l i n gs v . Stat e , 9 95 S.W .2d 754, 762 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The defe ndant’s fa ilure to reque st a continuanc e wa ives
an y Brady violation. Id. The r e c o r d

in d ic a te s th a t wh e nd e f

e n s e c o u n s e l w a s p r o v id e d w it ha c o p y o f th e r e c ords duri ngtr ia l, h e did

no t mo ve fo r a

c on tin ua nc e to e xami ne the re c or ds . B y fai li ngto r e qu e st a
c on tin ua nc e wh e n th e CPS e vid e nc e fi rs t c a me to l ig ht at tr ia l, Sch ill ingwa ive d a ny po te nti a l Brady violation he may

have ha d. Schilling’s four th and fifth issues ar e over ruled. I N EF FE C TI V E A SSI STA N C E O F C OU N SEL L astly , Schilling alleg es he r ece ived ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. A def endant is enti tl ed to e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l unde r bot

h the Un ite d Stat e s and

Te xas C on sti tut ion s. U. S. C O N ST . a me nd . V I ; T EX . C O N ST . art. I , § 10. The rig ht to effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel does not g uara ntee
a de fe nd ant e rr or le ss r e pr e se ntatio n; in st e a d, it a ff or ds a de fe nd ant a

n atto rn e y

wh o is re a so na

bly likely to rende r ef

fec tive assistance
. Mo or e v . S tate , 694 S.W .2d 528, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). To establish ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, the appe llant must show defense c ounsel’s assistance fell below a

n objective pr ofessional standa rd of r easona

bleness and c oun s el ’s actions thereby prejudice d appellant’ s defe nse. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U. S. 668 , 687 (1 98 4) ; Thompson v. Sta te , 9 S.W. 3d

80 8, 81 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). I n ord e r to es ta bli sh pr e jud ic e , ana

pp e lla nt m us t sh ow , b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , th a t “ but f

or c ouns e l’ s un

pr of e ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt of the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent.” J ac k so n v . S tate , 97 3 S.W. 2d 95 4, 95 6 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1998).04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 9- When review ing a

n ineffe ctive assistanc e claim, “[a]n appellate cour t looks to t he totality

of the re p re s entation and the particular circ umstances of

eac h case .” Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 813. Th e re is a str on g pr e sumpt ion

that de fe ns e c ouns e l’ s c on du c t f e ll w ith in the wi de ra

ng e of re a so na ble profe ssional assistance. Id. To de fe a t th is p re sumpt ion , th e “ re c or d mu st a ff ir mativ e ly de mon str a te the al leg ed inef

fec tiveness.” Bo nev . S

tate , 77 S.W .3d 828, 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Direc t
a pp e a l is us ua lly

an in a de qu a te ve hic le fo r ra isi ng an in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im b e c a

us e the re cord is g ener ally

undevelope d. Thompson , 9 S. W. 3 d a t 8 1 3
- 1 4
. M o r e o v e r , “ tr ia l c ounsel should ordinarily

be af forde d an opportunity t o ex p l ain his actions bef ore be ing de nounced a s ineffe ctive.” Ry lan de r v . S tate , 101 S.W .3d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Schilling’s appe llate brief lists num erous a cts and omissions by d ef ense counsel that he believes de monstrate counse l’s repr esentation wa s defic ient. For example, Schilling alleg es counse l was de ficient in his perf

ormanc e bec ause h e: (1) failed to obtain ruling s on pretria l motions ; (2) fa ile d to re qu e st a c on tin

ua nc e to se c ur e a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e pr ior to t he sta rt of tr ia l; ( 3) fa ile d to ob je c t to ina dmi ssi ble he ars ay e vid e nc e ; (4 ) fa ile d to c a ll a me dic a l e xpe rt

duri ngtr ia l; ( 5) fa ile d to pose ce rtain questions to the complainant on c ros s -e x am ination; (6) fa iled to impeach the complainan t an d t h e complaina nt’s mother; (7) f

ailed to establish the pre dicate to of fer sever al documents in t o ev i d en ce; and (8) e x hibited ge nera l incompetence . Howeve r, the re cord is silent as to why counsel made the dec isions he m ad e d u ri n g trial. We are there fore left to speculate as to defe nse cou n sel’s motivation and rea soning dur ing tr ial, which we may not do. Wi thout aff irmative evide nce in the r ec o rd to overc ome the pre sumption of reasona ble assistance , we must overrule Schilling ’s claim of ine ffe ctive assistanc e of counse l. Se e ge ne ra lly Gran t v . S

tate , No. 13-08-00424- CR, 2009 W L1361701, *2 (Tex. A pp.— Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.) (me m. op.,04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 10- no t de sig nate d f

or publ icatio n) (c on c lud ingde fe ns e c ouns e l’ s f a ilure to p re se nt a

va ila ble impeachme nt evidence or t h o ro ug hly cross-e x amine the witnesse s did not constitut e inef fec tive assistance wher e rec ord was silent a s to the motivation of counsel’s tactica l a nd strateg ic dec isions); Ga rza v . S

tate , No. 01-07-00176- CR, 2008 W L4837455, *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (c o n cl uding c ounsel’s fa ilure to establish the predic ate to off

er a defe nse exhibit did not constitut e ineffe ctive assistanc e whe re the re w as nothing in t he re c or d to e xpla in c ouns e l’ s c on du c t) ; Sa laz ar v . S tate , N o . 0 4
- 0 4
- 0 0 3 6 3
- C R , 2 0 0 5 WL 1397142, *6 (Tex. A

pp.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not de signated fo r p u blication) (conc luding c ounsel’s fa ilure to ca ll witnesses did not constitut e inef fec tive assistance of counse l beca use the re cord was silent a s to ( 1) why counsel chose not to call any witnesses, (2) whe ther a ny uncalled w itnesses wer e ava ilable for tr ial, and (3) whether the witnesses’ te s t i m o n y woul d have be ne fi tte d th e a

pp e lla nt) ; Ma re s v . S tate , 52 S.W.3 d 886 , 891 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 01 , p e t. ref ’d) ( concludingcounsel’s f ailure t o s ecur e ruling s on pretria l motions or re quest a c ontinuance did not constitut e ine ff

ec t i v e assistanc e bec ause r ecor d was silent with reg ard to the r easons f or
c ouns e l’ s c on du c t) ; Y

ba rra v . S tate , 890 S.W .2d 98, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, pet. ref ’d) (re cog nizi ng the “[f]ailure to object and e x clude inadmis s ib lete s ti mo ny is not necessa

rily ineffe ctive assistance of counse l.”). Schilling’ s first issue is overrule d. C ONCL US I ON The e vidence is leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support the co nvictions and the jury argument prese nted by

the prosec utor was pr oper, or if err or, not prese rved. A dditionally , no Brad y violation has been shown, a nd on this sil ent re cord, w e ca nnot say that Schilling04
- 08
- 00 59 1- CR

- 11- rec eived inef

fec tive assistance of counse l. Ba sed on the foreg oing, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirme d.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

DO NO T PU B L I SH