### NUM BER 13-09- 0000 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
ED WA R D B RA N T ON W H IT E A /K /A EDW A RD B RA ND ON WH ITE, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lant, E dw ard Branton W hit e a/k /a E dw ard Brandon W hit e, w as charg ed by ind ic tment w it h dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated (“ DW I” ), a c las s B mis demeanor

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04( a) -( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. This charg e w as enhanc ed bec ause appel lan t had tw o prior convictions for DW I and tw o prior felon y convictions for retaliatio n an d ba ilSect i on 1 2. 42( d) of t he p enal code pr ov i des t he f ol l owi ng: 1 Except as pr ov i ded by Subsect i on ( c) ( 2) , i f i t i s shown on t he t r i al of a f el ony off ense ot her t ha n a st at e j ai l f el on y . . . t ha t t he d efendan t h as pre v i ou sl y b ee n f i na l l y c on v i ct ed o ft wo f el ony off enses, and t he se cond pr ev i ous f el on y c on vi c t i on i s f or an off ense t hat occur r ed subsequ ent t o t he f i r st pr ev i ous co nv i ct i on h av i ng be com e f i nal , on conv i ct i on h e sha l l be puni shed by i m pr i sonm ent

. . . f or l i f e, orf or anyt er m of not m or e t han 99 y ear s or l ess t han 25 y ear s. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1 2.42 (d) ( V ern on S up p. 20 09 ). 2 jumpi ng . See i

d. §§ 12 .42 (d), 49.0 9(b)(2) (Vernon Sup p. 2009 ). A N uece s Count y jury 1
c o n vic t e d W h it e o f

t h e u n d e rl yin g o f

fe n s e , a n d t h e t ri a l c o u rts e n t e n c e d h im t o twe n t y-f ive y ears’ incarcerat ion in the I nstitu tiona l Div ision of t he T exas Dep artm entof Cri min al Justice (“TDCJ-ID”) w ith no f ine. By t h re e issues on a ppe al, ap pellan t asserts th at: (1) his
re tai ned t ri al couns el, Jo hn Gi lmore, di d n o t p ro vi de hi m w it h effect iv e as si sta nce; ( 2)
ev iden ce su ppor

ti ng the enhanc ement pa ra g ra ph of the ind ic tment w as leg all y and factu ally in suf f icient; and (3) the judgmen t of conviction is v oid be cause the jury’ s v erdict
w as not u nani mous. W e aff ir m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND W hite was indicted for t h e u n d e rl ying of

fense on Jun e 26 , 200 8. Prior to trial, Gi lmore fil ed numerous moti ons w it h the tr ial cou rt , in cl udi ng : (1 ) a moti on i n l imi ne; ( 2)
a r ule 404( b) req uestfor n oti ce of the St ate’ s i ntentto off er ex traneous conductev ide nce, see T EX
. R. E V ID
. 404( b) ; ( 3) a mot ion for d is cov er y , product ion , and i nspecti on of
ev ide nce; and (4 ) a moti on to prohi bitthe Stat e from i ntroduci ng st atements made by W hit e to pol ic e. The tr ial co urt g ra nted W hit e’s motion i n l im in e b ut di d notr ule on t he other moti ons filed

. A . T he Gu ilt -I nn ocen ce Ph ase T rial comm ence d on Decem ber 1, 2 008 . At trial, the Sta te called several w itnesse s, inc lud ing M il ton L ugo a n d Cor pus Chr is ti pol ic e off ic ers M ic hael R og ers a nd J ohn Mc Gi nle y , t o es tabl is h tha t W hit e w as dr iv ing hi s t ru ck w hil e i ntox ic ated.3

Lug o, W hit e’s nei g hbor , t est ified at tr ial that , on the d ay in q uest ion , he w as ins ide his hous e w hen he heard W hit e y ell ing for Lugo to mov e his tr uck . Lug o tes ti fied th at he had k now n W hit e for

sev eral y ears and that it appeared to him that W hit e w as int ox ic ated beca use W hite was y elling and slurring w ords. Up o n vi e win g W hite’s erratic be havior, Lug o i nst ru cte d hi s g ir lfri end t o c all the pol ic e. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Lug o admi tted that he a nd W hite h ad a n on going dispu te regarding ow nersh ip o f a d ri veway

and the fence betw een t hei r house s. Lug o ack now led g ed that he had cal led the p oli ce compl ain ing about W hite o n several occasion s in the pa st y ear. Of f icer Rogers testif ied t h a twh en h e arriv ed a t the scene , he saw W hite’s truck back int o the dr iv ew ay and W hit e ex it the tr uck from the dr iv er ’s si de w it h the key s to t he tr u cki n h is hand

. W hen O ff ic er R og ers a pproache d W hit e to q uest ion hi m about the disturb ance , W hite got in t o a n a ggressiv e, f ighting stan ce. Of f icer Rogers tried to ca lm W hit e and g et him t o s itdow n s o the y co uld di sc uss the inc ide nt; how ev er , W hit e resi ste d and the two men w restled and fell onto a piece of e quipme nt in the driv eway . As a result of the fall , W h it e s ust ain ed l acerati ons to hi s h ead. Officer R og ers t est ified thathe bel iev ed W hit e w as int ox ic ated becau se he w as sw ay ing , his speec h w as sl ur re d, his ey es
w er e bl oodsh ot, and hi s b re ath s mell ed of al cohol

. Off ic er Rog ers ask ed W hit e to prov ide a breath sampl e and to pe rfor m fiel d s obr iety tes ts, but W hit e refused to compl y . W hit e
w as then tak en to the hospi tal to treat t he l acerati on to hi s h e a d

. W h ile e n route to t he hosp ital, W hite volunte ered to giv e a bloo d sam ple bu t later ref used to do so. On crossex aminat ion , O ff ic er

R og ers a dmit ted t hat h e di d not person all y see W hit e dr iv ing and that the o nly thing h e saw w as W hite get out of the truck wi th th e keys i n his han d. Moreover, Off ic er R og ers n oted that W hit e’s bel li g erence li kel y w as due t o hi s u nhappi ness w it h bei ng q uest ion ed by

pol ic e.4

Of f icer McGinley

testif ied th at he assisted Of f icer Rogers on th e d is turba nce ca ll. O f f ic e r M c G in le y re c a ll e d se e in g W h it e e xitt h e d ri ve r’ s si d e o f t h e t ru c kwit h t h e t ru c kke ys in hi s h a n d . Of

f ice r McG in le y fo u n d th e tr u ck ke ys in W h it e ’s po ck e t w h e n co n d u ct in g a pat d ow n. Off ic er

McG inl ey

noted that: (1 ) W hit e w as v er y ag g re ss iv e; ( 2) he a nd Officer Rog ers “ smel led q uit e a b itof alc ohol ” on W hit e’s breath; and (3 ) W hit e w as w obbl y , had
re d, g las sy

ey es, and sl ur re d s peech

. Off ic er M cGi nle y

furth er note d that, w hil e on the w ay to t he hos pit al, W hit e ex press ed that he w oul d “ set tl e for a P. I. and t he c ri minal mis chi ef to t he nei g hbor ’s door” in ex chang e for droppi ng the DW I c harg e. Off ic er M cGi nle y

had no d oub t tha t W hite w as intoxicated at the time in question . On cross-ex am inatio n, W hite’s tr ial co unsel q uest ion ed Off ic er Mc Gi nle y about W hit e’s re peated sta tements thathe w as not d riv ing the tr uck

and emphasi z ed th at O ff ic er M cGi nle y

had not a ctu all y

se en W hit e driv ing the truck. W hit e c all ed s evera l w it ness es on hi s b ehal f, inc lud ing hi s father , Ed w ard W hit e, La ne B ur k e, a nd J oh nn y P ai y ou . E dw ard te s ti fi ed t ha t W hi te l i v ed w i th h i m, b uta t th e ti me in q uest ion , Ed w ard was not h ome. Edw ard furt her tes ti fied th at he had a v ide o surv eillance sy stem thatw as insta lled out side the hou se. T he sy stem recorded the arrest of W hite, and Edward alleged thatthe video sho w ed th at Pa iy ou wa s d ri vin g t he truck. Edw ard l ater

admi tted that he ac ci dental ly des troy ed th e v ide o recordin g the ar re st. Edw ard al so tes ti fied th at W hit e and Lug o had a l ong -s tandi ng feud. Lane B ur ke tes ti fied th at he w or ked for W hit e in W hit e’s tree busi ness and that, at the time in questio n, he was a p assen ger in W hite’s truck and P aiyou was d riv ing th e truck. Th e S t a t e i mp e a c h e d B u r k e b y n o t i n g h i s p r i o r

c o n v i c t i o n s f or

t h e fta n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance. Bur ke lat er admi tted that he l eft the s cene before t he pol ic e ar ri v ed.W h i te ’ s tri a l c o u n s e l re q u e s te d a m i s tri a l , b u t t h e n e x p re s s e d th a t h i s c l i e n t d e s i re d to p ro c e e d w i th 2 e l e v e n ju ro rs . 5 Pai y ou te sti fied th at he wo rke d for W hit e’s tree c ompany and that tw o y ears a g o, W hit e fell forty

f eet f ro m a tree and w as in a c oma for o v er thi rty day s. Pai y ou not ed th at he was awa re t h a tW h it e w as in a custo dy bat tle w ith his ex- w ife, Alicia Reynaga, in Mi nneso ta an d tha t R ey nag a had all eg edl y fled from C or pus Chr is ti to Mi nneso ta w it h W hit e’s so n. Paiyou t est ified thatat the t ime in q uest ion , he w as dr iv ing the tr uck and the re had not b e e n a d is turba nce b etween W hite a nd L ugo. How ever, on crossexamina tion, the St ate impe ache d P a iyo u with a litany of convictions. On re-direct
ex aminat ion , Pa iy ou s tated thathe d id not b eli ev e tha t W hit e w as int ox ic ated. T he d efense rested, a nd the S tate a nno unce d tha t it had a surprise rebut tal w itness,
w hic h Gi lmore s ur mis ed w as Rey nag a. Gi lmore i nq uired abou t t he s ubst ance of Reynaga’s testimo ny and asserted thatRey naga’s test imo ny w as subject to the orde r in li mine prohi bit ing the int ro duct ion of W hit e’s prev iou s b ad ac ts. How ev er , before R ey nag a tes ti fied, a juror communi cat ed to t he tr ial co urt t hat h e had been haras sed by

a w it ness i n the ca se. The w it ness w as lat er i denti fied as Pai y ou. The ju ro r sta ted t hat P aiy ou made the follo w ing comments w hil e i n the j uror ’s presenc e: “W e c a n ’ t t a mp e r w i t h t h e j u ro rs . H e y , j u ro rs , h e y j u ro rs . . . . ” Th e j u ro r b e l i e v ed th at Pai y ou w as mock ing the jurors a nd th at as a resul t of the comment s, the juror di d not bel iev e tha t Pa iy ou w as a credi ble person. The juror sta ted t hat h e di d nottel l any othe r jurors a bout the i nci dent and that he w as the onl y one w ho ov er heard the co mments made by Paiy ou. After dis cus si ng the si tuati on w it h counsel for b oth s ide s, the j uror w as ex cus ed f rom se rv ice on th e jury ; the parties agreed to proce ed wi th ele v en jurors. The t rial court 2 informe d the rema ining jurors aboutthe situa tion and instructed them thattheir v erdict still6

nee ded to be u nan imo us. Rey nag a testi fied that she w as pre v iou sl y i n a l ong -t er m rela ti onshi p w it h W hit e and tha t the y had a son to gether. Reynaga a d m it t e d t hatshe kep t in conta ct w ith Paiyou in
order to chec k u p on W hit e. Sh e not ed th at P aiy ou to ld her thatW hit e had pai d hi m to prov ide fals e tes ti mony —th at P aiy ou w as the dr iv er of t he tr uck w hen it had act ual ly been W hit e. W hit e’s tr ial co uns e l o bje cte d to thi s q uest ion and answ er , and the Stat e re spond ed th at i t w as usi ng the tes ti mony for i mpeachmentpur poses . A hear ing w as condu cte d outsi de the jur y ’s presenc e and, after

prev iew ing R ey nag a’s tes ti mony , t he tr ial court ove rr u le d W h ite’s obje ction. Rey naga sta ted thatw hen W hite a nd Pa iy ou were in t h e t ru c kt o ge t h e r, W h it e a lwa ys d ro ve . Sh e a ls o st a t e d t h a tW h it e wo u ld “d ri n ka n d d ri ve a l o t. ” O n c ro ss -e x aminat ion , G il more impl ied thatR ey nag a des ired to hav e W hit e s ent to pr is on s o tha t s h e c o u ld get cus tody of thei r son. R ey nag a c onfir med thatW hit e and L u go d o n o tge ta lo n g. On re -d i r e c t , R e y n a g a t e s t if ie d t h a tsh e h a d t o ge ta p ro t e c t ive
order ag ain st W hit e bec ause he had abuse d her i n the pas t. She also tes ti fied th at Edw ard w as not t ru thful a nd w oul d l ie to protec t hi s s on. The Stat e the n rest ed. Dur ing cl osi ng arg ument, Gi lmore c onced ed that W hit e w as int ox ic ated at t he ti me i n q uest ion and sta ted t hat t he onl y i ss ue for the j ur

y to deci de w as
w hether W hit e drov e the tr uck

. He arg ued t hat t he onl y person w ho all eg ed to hav e s een him dr iv ing the tr uck

w as Lug o, t he next- door nei g hbor

w it h w hom W hit e had an ong oin g feud. The j ur

y su bseq uentl y

co nv ic ted W hit e of felony D W I. B. T he Pun ish men t Pha se W hit e e l e c t e d fo r t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o a s s e s s p u n i s h me n t

. A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e St ate cal led M ik e H ummel, a member of the C or pus Chr is ti ci ty co unci l, and Nue ces C ounty7

She riff ’s Dep artm entL ieute nan t Fred Flores to est ablish W hite’s prior felon y convictions. Coun cilman Humm el testif ied th a th e w orked previ ously fo r the Nuece s Count y Distri ct Atto rn ey ’s Office a nd th at he had prosec uted W hit e before. Cou nci lman Hummel recal led prosec uti ng W hit e for re tal iat ion in June 1993, and that W hit e re cei v ed probati on for that charg e. Cou nci lman Hummel also noted that W hit e’s probati on w as re v oked in 1995. The ju d g me n tc o r r e s p o n d i n g t o W h i t e ’ s p r e v i o u s re t a l i a t i o n c o n v i c t i o n w a s t e n d e r e d and admit ted i nto e v ide nce. Lieu ten antFlores testif ie d t hathe ha d w orked for the Nue ces Coun ty She riff ’s Dep artment for th ir

ty -o ne y ears a s a fing er p rint ex per t. Li eutenan t F lores compared f ingerprints tha t w ere take n recen tly f rom W hite to f ingerprints in Stat e’s exhibit 11, w hich
w as th e pen pack et as soc iat ed w it h W hit e’s felony bai l jumpi ng co nv ic ti on. Lie utenant Fl ores tes ti fied th at t he fing er pr int s i n the pen pack et mat ched the fin g er pr int s t hat W hit e had g iv en prev iou sl y . Stat e’s ex hib it 11 w as then tendered and admit ted i nto e v ide nce. Once t he Sta te rested , W hite ca lled several w itnesse s to testif y as to his brain injury and hi s g ood dee ds in the c ommunity . In part ic ula r, R amona Pumarejo tes ti fied th at s he has know n W hit e for many ye ars and that she clea ns his house and answ ers the pho ne for W hit e’s bus ine ss . Ra m o n a d id not b eli ev e tha t W hit e w as a dang erous man and tho ught of

him as a help f ul and co nside rate perso n. S he even state d tha t W hite was “ like
a s on to [her .]” Sh e pl eaded w it h the tri a l co u rtto sent ence W hit e to a treatment facil ity rathe r than p rison beca use W hite “take s care of [ her.] ” In his closing statem ent , Gilmore
re ferenc ed W hit e’s brain i nju ry and re q uest ed th at t he tr ial co urt sen tenc e W hit e to a subs tanc e abus e treatment facil ity ra ther t han pr is on. The tr ial co ur t c oncl uded t hat t he Stat e had prov en bey ond a re asona ble doubtth a t W h it e had tw o prev iou s fel ony8

conv ic ti ons, tw o prev iou s D W I c onv ic ti ons, and commi tted the under ly ing offense. W hit e
w as sen ten ced to tw ent y -f iv e y ears’ incarcerat ion in the TDCJ-ID. C. T he Hea rin g on Whi te ’s M ot io n fo r N ew T rial W hit e fil ed a moti on for new tr ial on J anuar

y 2, 2009, and t he tr ial co urt c onduc ted
a hear ing on th e moti on s hor tl y thereafter. I n hi s mot ion and at t he hear ing , W hit e arg ued,
am ong oth er things, tha t the jury ’s v erdict w as imp rope r beca use it w as no t sig ned byall
e le ven ju ro rs, an d th a t h is t ria l co u n se l p ro vide d in e f fe c t i ve a ss ist a n ce . A t t h e he a rin g, W hite ca lled several w itnesse s to opine on the ef fects of his brain injuryand how the injury often cau sed W hit e to appear as i f he w as int ox ic ated. 1. Wh it e’s E v id ence Jar re tt Urspr ung , t he ow ner of a l ocal tree s er

v ic e and frie nd of W hit e’s , t est ified that, after

the acc ide nt, W hit e often appeared sl ow , his sp eech w as sl ur re d, an d he w as cl umsy . R a m o n a and Rud olp h Pumarejo both tes ti fied th at, after the a cc ide nt, W hit e ex hib it ed s ig ns of into x ic ati on, s uch as sl ur re d s peech and bad bal ance. R udol ph furt her tes ti fied th at, after the a cc ide nt, itw as difficul t to communic ate w it h W hit e and that W hit e of ten g ot an gr

y w hen atte mp ting to com mu nicate w ith oth ers. Rudolp h no ted thatW hite’s perso nality changed after the acciden t, an d tha t it of ten seem ed a s if W h it e “ w asn’t a ll there.” R udol ph te sti fied th at W hit e’s tr ial co unsel nev er co ntac ted h im t o tes ti fy. W hit e’s fri end, Jeffrey

Bu ck , st a ted t hat: ( 1) he w as presentat the t ime of the inciden t; (2) he w as na me d as a w itness in th e po lice report; an d (3) he w as stan ding in his g arag e w hen t he pol ic e ar ri v ed. Buck noted that he had k now n W hit e s inc e hi g h s chool and t hat W hit e had alw ay s b een a “w il d person. ” Buc k fur ther note d that W hit e i s “ pushy ,” “a n t s y, ” “l o u d,” and “bossy,” but when he took his m edicine , W hite was “ a little mo re9

re lax ed.” On cross -e x aminat ion , Buck admi tted that he w as not c los e enoug h to W hit e to det ermin e if

he ha d bee n drinking at the time in q uest ion. Bu ck also adm itted thathe cou ld nottell if W hite’s de me ano r w as cau sed by alcoh ol, me dicatio n, or so me thing else. Bu ck tes ti fied th at he w as nev er ask ed to tes ti fy but t hat h e w oul d hav e been presenti f asked

. Buck al so tes ti fied th at he tol d the prosec utor thathe did not see ex act ly w here W hit e w as at t he ti me i n q uest ion

. W hit e tes ti fied th at he nev er co mmunic ated w it h hi s t ri al coun sel about the cas e and that he w as not i ncl uded i n the preparati on for tr ial

. W hit e not ed th at he took Li ndane t o re medy sc abi es and t hat the medica ti on caused him neurol og ic al damag e. W hit e recal led an i nci dent in Mi nneso ta w here he w as ri din g around on a bicy cl e all eg edl y y ell ing at other peo ple an d generally “acting like a crazy person . ” W h it e testif ied th at Minne sota police believed th at he w as into x icated and adm inistered a breat h test ; howev er, the breath test
re v eal ed th at W hit e w as not i ntox ic ated. W hit e al so re cal led tha t th e n igh t before the inc ide nt, he drov e bac k from Al abama, w here he atten ded hi s mot her ’s funeral , and that he had not h ad muc h s lee p tha t ni g ht. W hit e testi fied that an admini strati v e hear ing w as in it ia t e d t o re vo k e h is d ri ve r’ s li c e n s e in c o n n e c t io n wit h t h is in c id e n ta n d t h e a d m in is t ra t ive law j udg e r ule d i n W hit e’s fav or and all ow ed hi m to k e e p h is d rive r’ s l ic ense. W hit e c l ai me d th at : ( 1) h e do es notdr i nk any mo r e; ( 2) h e r em em be r ed t he S ta te o ffered h i m a plea of fer of sev en years; and (3) he did notund erstan d tha t, by rejectin g the plea of fer, he w oul d be subj ectto a puni shmentrang e of tw enty -fiv e y ears t o l ife. 2. T he St at e’s E v id ence T he St ate called Gilmo re to test if y as to his represe nta tion o f W hite a t trial. Gilmo re state d tha t he ha s known W hite for mo re than ten years and th at W hite had ret aine d his10

ser v ic es. G il more did not re cal l any diff erence in W hit e’s co mpetenc e or mental abi li ti es ov er the ten y ears h e had know n hi m. Gi lmore tes ti fied th at on ce W hit e w as ind ic ted, he met w it h W hit e to pr epare f o r tr ia l. G il more re cal led thatW hit e ex press ed a desi re to
secure the pre sence of his w itnesse s, w ho a lso hap pen ed to be his f riends. Gilmore all ow ed W hit e to sec ur e the presenc e of the w it ness es but i nst ruct e d W h it e to br ing
ev er y one t o Gi lmore ’s o f

fice for tr ial preparati on. Gi lmore remembere d meeti ng w it h Pai y ou and Bur ke, but he noted that Bu ck nev er sh ow ed up to hi s o ff ic e. Gi lmore tes ti fied that W hit e tol d hi m thatBuc k “ w asn’ t around an y more . . . that he w as out of s tate or he
w as som epla ce.” Gilmore reca lled tha t he got the State ’s w itness l istf rom th e District Clerk. Gil mo re testif ied th at he w as aware of Pa iyo u ’s crimin al history, but notBurke’s. Gi lmore furt her

tes ti fied th at he d id n o t p ursue Buck ’s tes ti mony bec ause Gi lmore w as und er the im pr e s s io n t h a tB uck did no t know the w here abo uts of W hite a t the time in question and thathis trial strate gy w as to de mo nstrat e tha t W hite was not driv ing the truck, rathe r than ch allenging w het her W hite was intoxi cate d. W ith respe ct to Reynaga, Gilmo re sta ted t hat h is pr imar y co ncer n w as not t o i mpeach her w it h her

pre vious cr imi nal
conv ic ti ons but, ra ther , t o demons trate t hat h er tes ti mony was notcredi ble bec ause she
w as tr y ing to g et W hit e s ent t o pr is on i n order to g et c ust ody

of the c oupl e’s so n. The tr ial co urt den ied W hit e’s moti on for new tr ial

. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of a defendant’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial i s rev iew ed for abuse of dis creti on. See Holden v. State , 201 S.W .3d 761 , 763 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06); see also Cha rles v. State , 146 S.W .3d 2 04, 2 08 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004)

.

W e do not subs ti tute our judg ment for

that of the tr ial co urt, but rather11

w e dec ide w hether

the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on w as ar bit ra ry or unreason abl e. W e mu s tvi e w th e evidence in the light mostfavorable to th e trial court’s ru li ng and pre sume that all reaso nabl e fact ual f ind ing s that coul d hav e been made ag ain st the l osi ng par ty w ere made a g ain st that los ing par ty

. Thus, a tr ial co urt abu ses i t di sc re ti on in deny ing a moti on for new tr ial onl y w hen no re a so n a b le view of

th e rec o rd co u ld su p p o rtth e tri a l co u rt ’s ru lin g. Cha rles , 146 S.W .3d a t 208

. The defendant g enerall y has the burden of proo f o n a motion for new

tr ial

. See Patr ick v . St ate , 906 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 98 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995) ( en banc ). The proponent of the moti on for new

tr ial bears t he i nit ial burden of establ is hin g f act s enti tl ing him to the
r e l i e f s o ug ht. Se e M

ar quez v. Sta te , 921 S.W .2d 2 17, 2 22 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996) ( en banc)

. Fur

ther more, at the h ear ing on a moti on for new tr ial , t he tr ial co urt is th e t ri er of fact and the sol e jud g e of t he credi bil ity of the w it ness es. See Melton v . St ate , 987 S.W .2d 7 2 , 75 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 19 9 8 , no p e t. ) (ci ti n g Lewis v. Sta te , 91 1 S. W .2 d 1, 7 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1995) ). III . I N EFFEC TI VE A SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL By his f irst issue, W hite cont end s t hatG ilmore did notprovi de e f fective assistance of couns el. W hit e arg ues, i n s ev eral sub- is sues , t hat G il more faile d to: ( 1) i nv est ig ate a nd prese nt evidence of

his “trauma tic brain injury” ; (2) “ seek o ut an d call witnesses w ho co uld attes t t o W hit e’s m e d ica l condi ti ons, to inc lud e ex per t t est imony

on W hit e’s personal ity disorde r, a nd

. . . seek outf act w itnesse s”; (3) prese nt the P um arejos’ testim ony as to his post -acciden t me nta l state; (4) “ investig ate previ ou s inciden ts cause d by M r. W hite’s
me nta l history and his me dical histo ry ”; and (5) obt ain rulings on v arious pre -trial motion s. W hit e as ser

ts that, but for Gi lmore’s al leg ed er ro rs , t here i s a re asona ble probabi li ty that the o utc ome of the t ri al w oul d hav e been different. The S tate arg ues that the record does12

not demonst ra te that Gi lmore w as defici ent in his inv est ig ati on of t he cas e or i n pursui ng his tr ial st ra teg y

of est abl is hin g thatW hit e w as not dr iv ing the tr uck at the t ime in q uest ion

. The Stat e furt her

arg ues that W hit e di d notes tabl is h tha t the w it ness es and ev ide nce that tr ial co unsel al leg edl y

fail ed to pursue w ere more tha n marg ina ll y fav orabl e to hi s d efense. A . A pp licab le L aw T o esta blish a claim for in ef fective a ssistance o f

co unse l, W hite m ust sho w (1) his atto rney's represe nta tion fell below an object iv e stan dard of reason able ness, and (2) there is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor h is a tt or ney 's er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing
w oul d hav e been different. Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U.S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 9 (1984 ); He r n a n de z v . S ta te , 7 2 6 S .W .2 d 53, 57 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ; Jay nes v. State , 216 S.W .3d 8 39, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 6 , no pet. ). W hether thi s t esthas been met i s to be jud g ed on appeal by the t otal ity of the represent ati on, n ot by any i sol ated act s or omi ss ion s. Jay

nes , 2 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t8 5 1

. T h e b u rd e n is o n t h e a p p e ll a n tt o p ro ve ine ff ect iv e assi sta nce of couns el by a prepo nderance of the ev ide nce. Id. O ur rev iew of
coun sel's represen tatio n is highly def eren tial, an d w e w ill f ind ine f fective assistance only if the appel lan t ov er comes the strong presumpt ion that his couns el' s c onduc t fell w it hin the
w ide rang e of re a so n a b le professi onal as si sta nce. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. The r ig ht t o “ re asona bly effect iv e as si sta nce of couns el” does notg uara nte e err o rl e ss coun sel or coun sel w hose comp ete ncy is judged by perfect hin dsi g ht. Sayl

or v. Sta te , 660 S.W .2d 822, 824 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1983)

. Fur ther , t he ac ts
or omi ss ion s t hat for m the basi s o f appell ant' s c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce must be
ev ide nced by

the re cord. Se e T

hom pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 14 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Jay

nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851. In most cas es, a si len t re cord w hic h provide s no13

explanat ion for coun sel's action s w ill no t overcome the stron g presu mp tion o f reason able
ass is tanc e. Ma llett v. State , 65 S. W .3d 5 9, 63 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ; Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -1 4. B. Discuss ion W hit e’s pri mary

co ntent ion i s t hat G il more prov ide d i neffect iv e as si sta nce by fail ing to investigate and presen t evi den ce of W hite’s brain injury . W hite a lleges that, as a result of his brain i nju ry , he often had s lur re d speec h and stu mbled, w hic h coul d be i nter preted
as bei ng i ntox ic ated. At the moti on for new tr ial hear ing , G il more tes ti fied th at he
conc eded t he i ss ue of i ntox ic ati on a n d c h o se to c hal len g e the Sta te’ s e v ide nce as to
w hether W hit e w as operati ng the tr uck

. The cour t of cri minal appeals recent ly st ated that “[ t]he fact that another attor ney may hav e pursued a different tac ti c a t t ri al is i nsuffici ent t o prove a claim of

inef fective assistance .’” Ex par te M il ler , N o. A P- 76 ,1 67 , 20 09 Te x . C r i m. Ap p . LE XIS 1 4 8 6 , at*1 0 (T e x. Oc t. 28 , 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g Sche anette v. St ate , 144 S.W .3d 503, 509 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004) ). F urther more, t he record reflect s t hat: ( 1) Pai y ou tes ti fied atthe g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e as to W hit e’s ac ci dent and t he fact that he had bee n in a c oma for o v er

thi rty day s; and ( 2) Gi lmore referenc ed W hit e’s brain i nju ry i n hi s c los ing sta tements , t hus ale rt ing the jur y to W hit e’s brain inj ur

y . In addi ti on, W hit e did not present any ex per t t est imony

to suppo rt h is th e or

y thatthe brain i nju ry

ca used him to ap pear int ox ic ated. I nst ead, W hit e reli ed on the t est imony of frie nds at t he moti on f o r n e w tr ial hear ing who s pecul ated as to W hit e’s demeanor and w hose tes ti mony co nflic ted w it h Gi lmore’s tes ti mony . Gi v en th e nat ure of t h e c ircums tanti al ev ide nce sug g est ing that W hit e w as the d ri v er

of the t ru ck

at the time in q uest ion , w e c oncl ude t hat G il more’ s t ri al strateg y of attac ki ng the Stat e’s ev ide nce as to w hether W hit e w as dr iv ing the tr uck w as14

a reason abl e tr ial s tr a te gy. Moreov er , W hit e has not demonst ra ted t hat, based on t he evidence co nta ined in the record, the admission of his me dical records and other evidence docu me nting his brain injury w ould have resulted in a dif feren t jury

v erdict, esp ecially in li g ht of the tes ti mony

offer ed by

Officers R og ers a nd M cGi nle y , w ho test if ie d that w hen the y enco unt ered W hite a t the time in question , W hite h ad slurred spee ch, blo odsh ot eyes, poor bal ance, and alc ohol on h is breath. See S tr ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Her nandez , 726 S.W .2d a t 57; Jay

nes , 216 S.W .3d a t 851

. W hite also cont end s tha t Gilmore provi ded inef fective assistance byfailing to call Buck an d the Pum arejos to testif y as to w hat hap pen ed at the time in question and W hite’s demeanor

. At t he hear ing on W hit e’s moti on for new tr ial , Bu ck

tes ti fied th at W hit e w as a “ w il d person” and that he w as “l oud” and “b oss y .” Buck admitted thatW hit e al w ay s a cte d this w ay and thathe cou ld nottell w het her W hite’s de me ano r w as cau sed b y alcoho l, dr ug s, or

so methi n g else. M oreov er , Bu ck st ated that, at the t ime of the i nci dent, he obse rv ed th e po lice arr ive f ro m h is garage butthathe w as un sure as to W hite’s
w hereabouts

. Gi lm o re tes ti fied th at he reli ed on W hit e to sec ure the presenc e of the
w itnesse s g iv en th a tW h it e expressed th at he w ould bring his f riends to testif y on his beha l f. G i l mo r e fu rt h e r t e s t i fi e d t h a t B u c k w a s me n t i o n e d a s a p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s , but he
nev er sh ow ed up to Gil more’ s off ic e and W hit e i nformed G il more that Buck “ w asn’ t around any more. ” Reg ardle ss , Buck ’s admis si on that he w as unsure of W hit e’s w hereabouts at the ti me i n q ue s ti on s ug g es ts th at hi s te s ti mo ny w ou l d no t ha v e ai de d th e j ur y in det ermin ing W hite’s sole issue in dispu te attrial—w het her he w as driv ing the truck. W it h respec t t o the tes ti mony of the P umare

jos , W hit e all eg es that thei r tes ti mony
w ould have ref ute d the State ’s theo ry thathe w as into x icated and Gilmore’s failure to ca ll15

them as w it ness es amounted to i neffect iv e as si sta nce. As noted ear li er , R amona te sti fied at th e mo tion for new trial hearing thatW hite’s spe ech was slurred a nd h e ha d ba d ba lance
as a resul t of his bra in in jur y . Rud olp h noted that W hit e w as temperamental , ang ry , and “wa s n ’ta ll t h e re ” a f

t e r s u s t a in in g t h e i n ju ry t o h is b ra in

. T h is t e s t im o n y, i f t ru e , wo u ld h a ve only been of

marginal ben ef it to W hite’s argume nt at trial—tha t he was not driv ing the truck at t he ti me i n q uest ion

. At t he moti on for new tr ial hear ing , W hit e di d notel ic ittes ti mony from the Pumarejo s s tati ng thatthey w it ness ed th e i nci dent or had personal know led g e as to w hether

W h i t e w a s d r i v i n g t h e t r u c ka tt h e t i me i n q u e s t i o n . T h u s , W h i t e h a s n ot demonst ra ted h ow

Gi lmore’s fail ure to cal l the P umare jos as w it ness es dur ing the g uil ti nn oc en c e ph as e c au s ed t he j ur y t o i mp rop er l y

c on v i c t hi m. W hite f urthe r arg ues th at Gilmo re erred in failing to presen t a police rep ort document ing an i n cid ent i n M inn esot a w here W hit e w as mis tak enl y st opped for

bei ng int ox ic ated. The po li ce rep ort, w hic h w as admit ted a t t he moti on for new tr ial hear ing as defendant’ s e x hib it10, ind ic ated that W hit e clai med to be drunk at the t ime of the s top b y Minneso ta po lice and requested to take a breat halyz er test. T h e r esults o f the te st ind ic ated that W hit e w as not d ru nk, but the o ff ic er co nduct ing the sto p bel iev ed th at W hit e “w as jus t l ooki ng for a react ion .” Ag ain , t his ev ide n ce w oul d onl y be o f marg ina l si g nific ance cons ide ri ng the tes ti mony of O ff ic ers R og ers a nd M cGi nle y w ho te sti fied th at they smel led alc ohol on W hit e’s breath and obser v ed W hit e ex hib it many other signs of int ox ic ati on. Mo re ov er , t his inci dent does not addr ess w hether W hit e drov e the tr uck

at the ti me i n q uest ion

. By his next sub-issue, W hite co mp lains ab o u tGilmore’s prep aratio n an d crossex aminat ion of Rey nag a and Lug o. In pa rt ic ula r, W hit e all eg es that Gi lmore fail ed to : (1 )16

obtai n a r uli ng on h is pretr ial moti on for dis cov er y re g ardin g Rey nag a’s cr imi nal hi sto ry ; ( 2) obje ct to da ma ging characte r evidence present ed by Rey naga; (3) investig ate Rey naga’s impeac hment e videnc e; ( 4) i nv est ig ate b ias and moti v e as to Lug o; an d ( 5) req uesta li miti ng i nst ru cti on as to Rey nag a’s tes ti mony reg ardin g the all eg ed bri ber y of Pai y ou. Base d on our

rev iew of the re cord, w e canno t s ay thatW hit e has es tabl is hed t hat, but for thes e al leg ed i sol ated inc ide nts , t he j ur y w oul d hav e rendered a different v erdict. W it h respec t t o R ey nag a, t he record reflect s t hat P aiy ou te sti fied th at W hit e and Rey nag a w er e i n a cus tody battle ov er

their son and sug g est ed th at R ey nag a had fled to Mi nneso ta to keep the chi ld aw ay from W hit e. Rey nag a admit ted on cro ss -e x aminat ion tha t w hen they broke up, she and W hite w ere not f riendly. In addition , Gilmore , in crossexamin in g Re y naga, se em ed to sugg est th at Reynaga’s testim ony w as no t credible becau se she had an int eresti n seein g W hit e incarcerated in order to obtai n custo dy

of the coup le’s son. T he reco rd also ref lects tha t Gilmore object ed n um erou s times to Rey naga’s tes ti mony , w hic h incl uded refere nces to v ar iou s b ad ac ts all eg edl y per petrated by

W hit e. Furthe rmore , at the mot ion for new trial hearing, Gilmo re testif ied th at his prima ry conce rn in cross -e x amini ng R ey nag a w as to presentto the j ur y thatRey nag a desired to se e W hit e inc ar cerated so that she coul d getcustod y of their son, rath er

than to impeac h her

w it h her pr ior cr imi nal co nv ic ti on for DW I. W e cannot say that thi s t ri al strateg y

w as unreason abl e. W it h res p e ctto Lu go, bo th Ed ward an d Re yna ga t e st if ie d th a t t h e re w a s a lo n gsta ndi ng feud betw een Lug o and W hit e, w hic h, ac cordin g t o L u g o, c entered on the
o wn e rs h ip o f

a d ri ve wa y t h a t wa s s it u a t e d b e twe e n W h it e ’s a n d L u go ’s h o u s e s . Cl e a rl y, Gi lmore el ic it ed te sti mony about Lug o’s poss ibl e bia s ag ain st W hit e. Fur ther more, in li g ht of the te sti mony

g iv en by

Edw ard and Rey nag a, t he i ntrod u ct ion of the po li ce re cords17

re ferred to byW h it e on appeal w oul d hav e been merel y cu mulat iv e of Edw ard’s and Reynaga’s testimo ny and wo u ld h a v e on ly bee n of

marginal ben ef it to the jury in deter mini ng any

bi as on th e par

t of Lug o. W hit e next arg ues that Gi lmore’s all eg ed failu re to obj ect or requ e st a limit ing ins tr uct ion w it h reg ard to Rey nag a’s tes ti mony aboutthe br ibe ry

of Pai y ou amount ed to ine ff ective a ss ist ance. W e first note that the c our t of cr imi nal appeal s h as hel d tha t attempt s t o tam p e r with a w it ness or br ibe a w it ness co nst it utes ev ide nce of “c onsc iou snes s of g uil t” on the partof the defendant. See Gonz ale z v. State , 117 S.W .3d 8 3 1 , 8 4 2 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 003) ; W ils o n v . St ate , 7 S.W .3d 1 36, 1 41 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Ran somv. Sta te , 9 2 0 S

. W. 2 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 9 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( o p . o n re h ’ g ) ( “ We hav e hel d tha t c ri minal ac ts that are des ig ned t o reduce the li kel iho od of prosec uti on, convict io n, or

i ncarcerati on for the o ff ense on tr ial are admi ss ibl e under R ule 404( b) as showing ‘consciou sness o f g uilt.’”); se e al

so T EX
. R. E V ID
. 4 0 4 ( b ) ( prov idi ng thatextraneous acts are gene rally

inadm issible at the g uilt-inno cence stage of trial). The refore, evidence of the alleged bribe w as ad missible to imp each P aiyou’s te stimo ny an d to ind icate W hite’s
c o n s c io u sness o f

g uilt. In an y

ev ent , the record ref lects tha t Gilmore object ed to this testim ony as hearsa y , w hich th e trial court, after cond ucting a hea ring out side th e prese nce of t h e j u r

y , o v e r r u l e d

. N e v e rt h e l e s s , W h i t e d o e s n o ts h o w h o w a n y l i mi t i n g i n str uct ion
w oul d hav e been cons is tent w it h the d efensiv e i ss ues ra is ed attr ial

. See E x p ar te V ar ela s , 45 S. W .3d 6 27, 6 32 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001)

. Mo re ov er , the re cord is si len t as to nuanc es of Gilmore’s trial strategyin not requestin g a limiting instruction regarding Reynaga’s tes ti mony

aboutthe br ibe ry . See M allett , 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 3 ; Thompson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 -14. T hus, w e can notsaythatapp ellantmethis burde n of showi n g t hatGilmore’s18

ass is tanc e w as ine ff ect iv e w it h respect t o thi s s ub- is sue. In hi s fin al sub- is sue, W hit e c omplai ns that Gi lmore fail ed to obta in a r u li ng on col lat eral est oppel

. Spec ific all y , W hit e arg ues that the S tat e w a s co ll aterall y es topped from pursu ing the DW I charge beca use an adm inistrative law judge ha d con clude d previously that the S tate la ck e d p ro babl e c ause for th e ar re st. Thi s a rg ument, how ev er , i s w it hout meri t i n l ig ht of s ect ion 724. 048( a) of the t ra nspor tati on c ode, w hic h prov ide s t hat: T he d ete rmina tion o f

the de partm entof

adm inistrative law

judge . . . is a civ il matter

. . . is indepe ndent of and is not an estoppel as to any matte r in is sue in an adj udi cat ion of a c ri minal charg e ar is ing from the occ ur re nce that is the basi s for the sus pensi on or deni al; and

. . . does not p re cl ude l it ig ati on of the same o r si mil ar

facts i n a c ri minal prosec uti on. T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN
. § 724. 048( a) ( Ver non 199 9) ; see Rey nolds v. State , 4 S.W .3d 1 3, 18- 21 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. Therefore, t he St ate was not c oll aterally e st o p p ed from p r o s e c u t i n g W h it e fo r th e un d e rlyin g of fe n se eve n th o u gh t h e ad m in ist ra ti ve la w ju d ge deter mined that W hit e’s ar re st w as not s uppor ted b y probabl e cause. The record does not suppo rta f ind ing that Gil more prov ide d ineffect iv e assi sta nce by fail ing to obtai n a r uli ng on c oll ateral est oppel

. In re v iew ing the total ity of G il more’ s re present ati on of W hit e, w e cannot s a y t hat W hite h as overcome the “strong presu m p t io n” thatGilmore pro v ided reason able
ass is tanc e. See S tr

ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9; Jay nes , 216 S.W .3d at 851

. W h it e’s f irst is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. T H E E NHA NCEM ENT P A R A GR A PH By hi s s econd i ss ue, W hit e as ser ts that the S tate faile d to p ro d u ce leg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he enha ncementparag ra ph c ontai ned in the in d ic t m e n t , wh ic h su bje c t e d h im t o a n e n h a n c e d p u n is h m e n tu n d e r t h e h a b it u a l fe lo n y-19

off ender st atute

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 1 2

. 4 2 (d ). W h it e a r g u e s t h a th is two previous felon y

convictions ran concu rrently and w ere execute d on the sam e da y , w hich suggests th at his f irst convi ction for retaliatio n w as no t “fin al” at the time th at th e of fense made t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e c o n d c o n v i c t i o n w a s c o mm i t t e d , a n d t h u s , d i d n o t fo l low the pr esc ri bed seq uence for enhancement under

secti on 12. 42( d) of the p enal co de. See i d. The Stat e c ontends t hat i t foll ow ed th e proper se q uence and present ed l eg all y and factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he enha ncementof W hit e’s puni shment

. A . A pp licab le L aw The cour t of cr imi nal appeal s h as re cent ly st ated the fol low ing w it h respect t o the suffici ency

of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing puni shmentenhancement for habi tual felony of fend ers: The la w co ncer nin g su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce to prov e enhan cementfor habi tual felony off enders is w ell se ttl ed. Sect ion 12.4 2( d) of the P enal C ode requires the Sta te to prove this chronolo gical sequen ce of ev ent s: “(1) the f irst convi ction b ecom es f inal; (2 ) the o ff ense lea din g to a l ater co nv ic ti on i s c ommitt ed; (3) the late r convi ction b ecom es f inal; (4) the of

fense for w hich t h e d efend antpresen tly stand s accuse d is commi tted. ” Ex p a rt e M il ler , 2 0 0 9 T e x. Crim . A p p . L EXI S 1 4 8 6 , a t * 3 5 (quo ti n g Jor dan v . St ate , 256 S.W .3d 286, 290- 91 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2008) ); see Valdez v. Sta te , 2 1 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 2 , 8 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007) ; see als o T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12. 42( d)

. The Stat e c ar ri es the b urden of prov ing bey ond a re a so n abl e doubtthata defendant’ s s econd pre viou s fel ony co nv ic ti on w as commi tted after the def end ant ’s first previous felon y conviction beca me f inal. And w hen , “there is noev ide nce to show that the of

fenses w ere c ommitt ed and became final20

in the p ro per

se q uence , t he def e n d a n t’ s s entenc e may not be enha nced und er the St ate ’s habitu al of fend er statu tes.” Jor dan , 2 5 6 S. W .3 d at29 1 (quo ti n g Tom li n v . St ate , 722 S.W .2d 7 02, 7 05 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ) (e mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. The Jor dan co urt furt her

note d tha t: At t he s entenc ing phase, neit her party carr ies the burden of prov ing wha t p u n ish m e n t s h o u ld be as se ss e d w it h in t h e st a tu to rily p re sc rib e d ran ge appl ic abl e to a g iv en off ense. G enerall y , t he fact[ ]finder ’s dec is ion of w hat par ti cul ar se ntenc e to ass ess i s a “ nor mati v e, dis creti onar y functi on” that does not d epend o n the r esol uti on of spe ci fic fact s. H ow ev er , w hen t he Stat e s eeks to enhanc e a defendant’s se ntenc e for the p ri mary offense by alleging tha t a def end anthas a prior conviction, an d the defend antente rs a ple a of not tr ue, the fact[]fin der must deci de w hether the Stat e has su sta ine d it s b urden byenteri ng a findi ng that the enhancement all eg ati on is eit her tr ue or not tr ue. In es senc e, t he as ses sment of punis hment i nv olv es tw o ty pes of deli berati ons w hen t he St ate has all eg ed, and the def endant has entered a plea of

not true to, a prior conviction use d for enh ance me nt pu rpose s. Fi rs t, the fact []finde r eng ag es in a deduc ti v e, dis crete fact- findi ng proces s t o det ermin e w het her the S tate h as proved tha t the enh ance me nt allegatio n is true. And seco nd, conside ring all o f t he evidence adm itted d uring th e guilt and pun is hment ph ases , t he fact[ ]finder eng ag es in a nor mati v e proces s t hat is uni nhi bit ed by

any requi re d, s peci fic factdete rmi nati on to dec ide w hat p a rt ic u la r p u n is h m e n tt o a s s e s s wit h in t h e ra n ge p re s c ri b e d b y la w. Id. at 291 -92 (interna l citations om itted ). A fa ilure of proof supp orting the en han cem entis notsubjectto a ha rmless error ana ly sis; in stea d, “it is a suf f iciency- of-ev iden ce de f iciency tha t can ‘ne v er be con sidered harm less.’” Ex par te M il ler , 200 9 Tex . C ri m. A pp. L EX IS 1 4 8 6 , a t * 3 6 (quo ti n g Jor dan , 256 S.W .3d at 292 ). The g eneral ru le, w it hin the cont ext of se cti on 12.42 of the penal co de, i s t hat a
conv ic ti on from w hic h an appeal has been tak en is not cons ide re d to be a final conv ic ti on unti l the c onv ic ti on i s a ff ir m e d b y t he appe ll ate c our t and thatco urt’ s mand ate o f aff ir mance becomes final

. See Jones v. State , 711 S.W .2d 6 34, 636 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) ( en banc ). The c our t of cr imi nal appeal s h as hel d tha t: [A]fter the Stat e establ is hes that a defendant has been prev iou sl y co nv ic ted,21

thi s C our

t w il l pr e su m e t h a t a c onv ic ti on i s fin al w hen faced w it h a s il ent re cord reg ardin g su ch. Pu t ano ther w ay , i n the abs ence of ev ide nce to t he cont ra ry , t his C our

t presumes the reg ula ri ty of the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment and r e c o rd s . T h u s , w h e n t h e S t a t e o ffe rs i n to e v i d e n c e a c e rt i fi e d c o p y o f a jud g ment and sent ence, ithas made a pr ima facie cas e tha t t he c onv ic ti on re flect ed w it hin thatj udg ment and se ntenc e i s a final co nv ic ti on w orth y of re spec t. T hat ev ide nce is leg all y and factual ly

suff ic ien t t o prov e tha t a pr ior conv ic ti on is a f inal conv ic ti on abs ent a ny ev ide nce to t he c ontrar y . If the jud g ment of co nv ic ti on has been set a sid e , v acat ed or appeal ed, t he defendant must off er some ev ide nce to suppo rt that fact. On ce the def end antof

fers thatev iden ce, the Sta te m ust prove, be y ond a reason able doubt, thatthe conv ic ti on has been aff ir med and the mand ate h as is sued.

. . . . Altho ugh the w ish m a y b e fath er to the thou ght, the possibility of a f utu re appeal i s n ot t he fact of a presentappeal. The r ig ht t o tak e an appeal does notequal the p end ency of an ap pea l.

. . . . Onl y w hen there is ev ide nce that the defendant act ual ly per fected an appeal is t h e co n vic t io n d e e m e d t o b e la c k in g f in a li t y. Jones v. Sta te , 77 S.W .3d 8 19, 8 22- 24 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) (ci tations and q uotat ion mark s o mitt ed)

. In other w ords, the “‘ burden is on the Stat e to mak e a p ri ma facie sh ow ing that any pr ior co nv ic ti on al leg ed for enhanc ement, or for puni shi ng an a cc used as a repeat off ender , bec ame final before the c ommis sion of the pr imar y offense, and once suc h a showing is mad e, th e b u rd en sh if ts to the defend antto prove othe rw ise.’” Jones , 711 S. W .2 d a t 63 5 (quo ti n g Di re m iggio v. State , 637 S .W .2d 9 26, 9 28 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 2)). B. Discuss ion Here, t he i ndi ctment co n ta in e d an en h a n ce m e n t p a ra gra p h pro vidi n g th a t W h it e had tw o prev iou s fel ony

co nv ic ti ons f o r re tal iat ion and bai l jumpi ng . The in dictment further prov ide d tha t W hit e had tw o prev iou s D W I c onv ic ti ons occ ur ri ng on Febr uar y 4, 1998, and Dec ember

15, 1998. W hit e pleaded “n ot t ru e” to the p orti on of the ind ic tment re ferr ing to22

his tw o prev iou s D W I c onv ic ti ons and t o the enhancement parag ra ph per tai nin g to the
re tal iat ion and bai l jumpi ng conv ic ti ons. After rev iew ing the ev ide nce present ed atthe puni shmentphas e, t he tr ial co urt c onclu d e d t h a t t he St ate h ad prov en bey ond a
re asona ble doubtthatW hit e had tw o prev iou s D W I c onvic ti o n s and tw o prev iou s fel ony c o n vic t io n s fo r r e t a li a t io n a n d b a il ju m p in g. T h u s , W h it e wa s se n t e n c e d t o twe n t y-f ive y ears’ i mpri sonment , i n ac cordance w it h the puni shmentrang e prescrib e d i n se cti on 12.42( d) of the p enal co de. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12 .42 (d). On ap peal , W hit e onl y

ch all eng es the e nhanc ement of hi s s entenc e w it h respec t t o the felon y

retaliation and bail jump ing conv ictions; h e do es no t dispu te th e trial court’s f in d in g t h a th e h a d b e e n co n vic t e d p re vio u s ly o f two DW I s . In p ro vin g t h a tW h it e h a d two pr ior felony co nv ic ti ons, the St a te su bmit ted i nto e v ide nce the j udg ments cor re spond ing to W hite’s reta liation a nd b ail jump ing con vic t io n s . Th e judgme nt pe rtaining to W hite’s
re tal iat ion co nv ic ti on reflect ed th at W hit e w as pla ced on probati on for the o ff ense, and that the S tate filed i ts moti o n to re v oke on J uly 9, 1994. W hit e’s probati on w as re v oked on Febr uar y 23, 1995, and he w as sent enced to tw o y ears’ co nfinement

. F u rther more, the judgme nt corresp ond ing to W hite’s felon y bail jum ping conviction ref lects tha t the of fense
w as commi tted on M ar ch 31, 1 995, and he w as conv ic ted o f t he off ense on September 15, 1995. The tr ial cour

t sent enced him to tw o y ears’ co nfinement, to ru n c oncur re ntl y w it h the sent ence impos ed i n the retal iat ion ca se. W hit e di d notpresentany ev ide nce ind ic ati ng that eit her

of thes e c onv ic ti ons w ere appea led

. See Mi lbu rn v. St

ate , 201 S. W .3d 7 49, 7 51 ( Tex

. C r i m. A pp . 20 06 ) ( s ta ti ng t ha t a pr i or c on v i c ti on i s no t fi na l i f de fen da nt s ti l l h as t i me to f il e a moti on for

newtri al or

a no ti ce of appeal ); see als o Jones , 77 S.W .3d a t 822 -2 4. The cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s h as hel d that a p ro b a te d se ntenc e i s n ot a final23

conviction for

e nha ncem entpurpo ses un der sectio n 12 .42 of the pe nal cod e un less probati on is re v oked and anyappeal of the rev ocat ion has been re sol v ed. Jor dan v . St ate , 3 6 S. W .3 d 87 1 , 8 7 5 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (ci ti n g Ex par te La ngley , 833 S.W .2d 141, 143 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ; E x p a r te M il ler , 5 52 S. W .2d 164 , 165 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 77)). Beca use th e record d o e s n o tr ef lect tha t W hite a ppe aled his retaliation conviction, this
conv ic ti on bec ame fin a l f o r p ur poses of enhanc ement on the date his probati on w as re v oked— Febr uar

y 23, 1995. See i

d. More over, becau se W hite co mm itted the of fense of felo ny bai l jumpi ng on M arch 31, 1 995, or , i n oth er w ords, after

hi s retal iat ion co nv ic ti on became final , and bec ause W hit e’s bail jumping conv ic ti on became f ina l on Sep tember 15, 1995, before h is co nv ic ti on in t h e p resentca se, w e c oncl ude t hat t he St ate fol low ed th e pr o p e r s e q u e n c e p r e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1 2

. 4 2 ( d ) o f t h e p e n a l c o d e a n d p ro v ed bey ond a
re asona ble doubtthatW hit e had been c onv ic ted p re v io u sly o f t wo feloni es. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12 .42 (d); se e al so Ex par

te M il ler , 2009 T ex . Cr im. App. LEX IS 1 486, at * 35; Jor

dan , 256 S.W .3d a t 291

. As suc h, w e c annot say thatthe enhanc ement of W hite’ s se n tence under the habi tual felony

offender

st atute w as suppo rt ed by l eg all y or factual ly i nsuffici ent e v ide nce. See Hooper v. Sta te , 214 S.W .3d 9 , 13 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( hol din g thatin a leg al suffici ency rev iew , w e v iew

the re lev ant e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict t o det er mine w hether a rati onal tr ier

of f actcould hav e found the e ss enti al ele ments of t he cr ime bey ond a reason abl e doubt ); see als o Watson v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Crim. App . 200 6) (holding thatin a factu al suf f iciency
rev iew , w e rev iew the evidence in a ne utral light to dete rmine w het her the ev iden ce is so
w eak that the j ur

y ’s v erdict s eems c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ustor

ag ain st the g re at
w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce)

. W e ov er ru le W hit e’s se cond is sue.24 V. T H E J U D GM ENT A N D THE J URY ’ S V E RDI CT I n h is fin al issue, W hite a rg ues, for the f irst time on app eal, th at th e judgme nt did not c onst it ute a u n ani mous v erdic t bec ause itw as re ndered by el ev en j urors a nd w as si g ned onl y by the presi din g j uror . See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 36.29. The S tate
ass erts that W hit e w aiv ed any er ro r by faili ng to obj ect

. It als o arg ues that the j udg ment
w as v alid beca use the ju ry was p olled a nd e ach juror an sw ered thatthe verdict w as the irs. A . A pp licab le L aw “U nder our sta te cons ti tuti on, jur y unani mity is re q uired i n felony ca ses , and under our state stat ute s, una nim ity is required in all criminal case s.” Ngov. St ate , 175 S.W .3d 738, 745 ( Tex . C rim. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). Pursuantto arti cl e 36. 29 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re , notl ess than tw elv e j urors c an render and re tur n a v erdic t in a felony ca se, and the v erdict m ust be “concurred in by each juror an d signe d by the forem an. ” T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 36.29 (a) (Verno n Sup p. 2009 ). Article 36. 29 a lso provides that , in the ev ent that a juror

dies or becomes dis abl ed f ro m ser v ing on the j ur

y , “ the remaind er

of the jury shall have the po w er to rend er the verdict.” Id. “ W hen t he v erdic t s hal l be rend ered byless than the whole n u m ber, it sha ll be sig ned byev erymem ber of the jury
concu rring in it.” Id. How ev er , Tex as cour

ts, i n cons tr uin g arti cl e 36.29, hav e hel d tha t a defendant may
w aiv e the req uirement of a jur y compri sed of tw elv e jurors byf ail ing to obj ectw hen t he tr ial proceed ed w it h el ev en j urors. See Hatch v . St ate , 95 8 S. W .2 d 81 3, 81 5- 16 (Tex. Cr i m. App. 1997) ( en banc ) (h old ing thata de fendant may w aiv e the rig ht t o a j ur

y co mposed of tw elv e persons in nonca pit al feloni es and c api tal feloni es w here the prosec uti on does not
s e e k t h e de a th pe n a lt y) (cit in g Mc Mi ll an v . St ate , 1 2 2 Te x . C r i m. 5 8 3 , 5 7 S .W .2d 1 2525

(1 933) ); see als o Shaw v . St ate , N o. 05 -0 0- 00186- CR , 200 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 740, at * *6- 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as Nov . 15, 2000, no p et.) ( mem. op., not desi gna te d f or publ ic ati on) (h old ing thatdefendant w aiv ed er ro r b y f a il ing to obj ecti n a c ase w here the j ur y w as com prised of

e leven ju rors, o nly the p residing juro r signed the verdict, and the jurors w ere polled ). B. Discuss ion In t his ca se, one juror

w as ex cus ed f ro m ser

v ing on the jur

y and both par

ti es ag re ed t o p rocee d to verdict w ith eleven jurors, the reby w aivi ng the requireme nt th at th e jury , in a felony ca se, mustbe c ompri sed of tw elv e j urors. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 36.29( a) ; see also Hatch , 958 S.W .2d a t 815 -1 6. At n o poi nt di d W hit e obj ectto (1 ) proce edin g w ith eleven jurors, or (2) the v erdict be ing signed on ly bythe pre siding juror. Beca use W hite a greed to proce ed wi th ele v en jurors, an d be cause W hite failed to object to the v erdict onl y bei ng si g ned by the presi din g juror , w e c oncl ude t hat W hit e has w aiv ed thi s is sue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) ; Hatch , 958 S.W .2d a t 815 -1 6; Ren ner v. Sta te , 758 S.W .2d 8 90, 8 91 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1988, pet. ref ’d ) (c oncl udi ng thatappel lan t
w aiv ed hi s c ontent ion reg ardin g an e lev en- juror v erdict si g ned by

the presi din g j uror

al one by failing to o bject at the t rial court); see als o Shaw , 200 0 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 740, at * *6- 7. Mo re ov er , ev en if the lac k of ind iv idu al si g natures on the jury ’s ve rd ic t w as error , W hit e w as not h ar med bec ause: (1 ) th e j urors w ere pol led ; ( 2) eac h j uror ex press ed th at t he g uil ty
ve rd ic twa s t h e ir

ve rd ic t ; a n d (3 ) W h it e d id n o tre qu e s ta n y a d d it io n a l p o l l i n g o f t h e ju ry. T here fore, an y

error associate d w ith the omission of the indiv idua l sig nat ures on the verdict form di d notaffectW hit e’s su bst anti al ri g hts and is , t hus, har mles s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2( b) ; see als o Shaw , 200 0 T ex. App. LE XIS 7740 , at * 7

. W hite’s th ird issue is26

ov er ru led

. VI. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e hav e det er mined that: ( 1) W hit e h as faile d to ov er come t he “ strong pr esumpt ion ” that Gi lmore prov ide d reason abl e as si sta nce; ( 2) the enhan ce m ent o f W hit e’s se ntenc e w as suppo rt ed by l eg all y and factual ly

suff ic ien t ev ide nce; and (3 ) W hit e
w aiv ed any

er ro r ass oci ated w it h the jur y ’s v erdic t, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis creti on i n deny ing W hit e’s moti on for new tr ial

. See Holden , 201 S.W .3d a t 763; se e al

so Cha rles , 146 S.W .3d a t 208

. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the judg ment of the tr ial
cour t.

_________ _________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA J u s t i c e Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Del iv er ed and filed the 21stday of Janua ry , 201 0.