1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 099- CR NO. 2 - 08 - 10 0- CR

L UI S CH AVA R R I AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antLu i s C hav ar r iapp ea l s hi s con vi ct i onsan d s ent enc esf or a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u lto f a c h ild u n d e ra g e f o u rt e e n a n d p o s s e s s io n o fc h ild por nog r aphy. I n a si ngl e poi nt , he ar gues t hathi s tri a l c oun sel pr ovi ded c o n s ti tu ti o n a l l yi n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l . W e w i l l a ffir m .2

C havar r ient er ed open pl eas ofgui l t y t o t he of f enses of aggr avat ed sexual a s s a u lto fa c h ild u n d e rf o u rt e e n y e a r so fa g e a n d p o s s e s s io n o fc h ild p o r n o g r a p h y . H e t e s t if ie d a tt h e p u n is h m e n tp h a s e o ft h e t r ia l a n d d e t a ile d h is cr i m i nal con duc t . C hav ar r i ’ s cou ns el ca l l ed t hr ee ot her w i t nes se s w ho ga ve t est i m ony. Th e t r i al courtf oun d C havar r igui l t y ofbot h of f enses and sent enced hi m t o t hi rt y- f i ve year s’ co nf i nem entforthe aggr avat ed sexual assaul tof f ense and ei ght year s’ conf i nem entf ort he possessi on ofch i l d por nog r aphy o f f ense. C havar r iar gues i n hi s sol e p oi ntt hatbecause t r i al counsel ’ s “ent i r e goal w ast o a chi eveasl eni enta se nt enc e a s pos si bl e, ” he w as i nef f ec t i ve f orf ai l i ng t o obt ai n a m i t i gat i on spe ci al i stt o ass i sti n t he i nve st i gat i on and handl i ng oft he c a se . C h a v a rr ic o n ten d s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtsh o u l d h a v eb e e n p res e n ted w i th evi dence of hi s l i f e st or y f r om sour ces ot hert han j ustt he Pr e- S ent ence I nve st i gat i on Rep ortan d hi s si st er ’ s t es t i m ony and t hatt r i alcouns el“puton a h a l fh e a rte d m i ti g a ti o n c a s e .” To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o f cou ns el , app el l antm us ts how by a pr epo nde r anc e oft he evi den cet hathi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l be l ow t he s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m sa n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i alw oul d ha ve b e e n d i ffe re n t. Str

i ckl and v. W ashi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4(1 9 8 4 ); Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 1 63 S. W . 3d 734 , 740 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.3

2 0 0 5 ); Ma l

le tt v. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); T h o mp so nv. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Her nan dezv. S tate , 9 8 8 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). I n e val uat i ng t he ef f ec t i ven es s ofco uns elunde rt he f i r stpr ong, w e l ook t o t he t ot al i t yo ft he r epr esent at i on and t he part i cul arci r cum st ances ofeach c a s e . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at 81 3. Th e i ssue i s w het hercounsel ’ s ass i st ance w a s re a s o n a b l e u n d e r a l l th e c i rc u m s ta n c e sa n d p re v a i l i n g p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s a t th e ti m e o f th e a l l e g e d e rro r. See Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t688– 89, 104 S. C t . at2065 . Revi ew ofco uns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on i s hi ghl y def er ent i al , an d t he r e v ie w in g c o u rtin d u lg e sa s t r o n g p r e s u m p t io n t h a tc o u n s e l’s c o n d u c tf e ll w it h in a w i d e ra n g e o f re a s o n a b le re p re s e n ta ti o n . Sal i nas , 163 S. W . 3d a t740; Ma l le tt, 6 5 S . W . 3 d at 63 . A r evi ew i ng c ourtw i l l r ar el y bei n a pos i t i on on d ir e c ta p p e a l t o f a ir lye v a l u a t e t h e m e r it so fa n in e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e c la im . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813– 1 4 . “I n t he m aj or i t y ofca se s, t he r ec or d on di r ec tap pea l i s unde vel ope d a nd c ann otad equ at el y r ef l ec tt he m ot i vesbe hi nd t r i al counsel ’ s act i ons. ” Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Ma l le tt, 65 S. W . 3d at63) . Thus , t her e i s a su bs t ant i alr i skoff ai l ur e w hen a cl ai m of i ne f f ec t i ve ass i stanc e of co un sel i s brou gh t on di r ec t ap pe al. T ho mpson , 9 S . W .3d at81 3. To ov er com e t he pr esum pt i on of r easonabl e pr of essi onal as si st anc e, “ anyal l ega t i on ofi nef f ec t i ven es s m us tbe fi r m l y f ounde d i n t he4

r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ustaf f i r m at i vel y dem onst r at e t he al l eged i nef f ect i veness. ” Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813) . I ti s notap pr opr i at e f oran ap pel l at e c ourtt o si m pl y i nf eri nef f ec t i ve ass i stanc e base d up on un cl ea r po rt i on s of t he r ec o rd . Ma ta v. S tate , 226 S .W .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e se c o n d p ron g o f Str i ckl and re q u i re sa s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’se rro rs w e re s o se ri o u s th a t t h e yd e p ri v e d the d e fen d a n t of a fai r tri a l , i .e., a tr i a l w i th a re l i a b l e re s u l t. S tr ickl a n d , 46 6 U . S . at68 7, 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . I n ot her w or ds , a p p e l l a n tm u s ts h o w t h e r e i sa r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t yt h a t , b u tf or coun sel ’ s unpr of essi onal er r or s, t he r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng w oul d have been d i ffe r e n t . Id. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . A r easonabl e pr obab i l i t y i s a p ro b a b i l i tys u fficie n t to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e o u tc o m e . Id. T h e u l ti m a te f o c u s o fo u rin q u irym u s t b e o n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l f a ir n e s s o f t h e p r o c e e d in g in w h i c h th e re s u l t i sb e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . Id. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2070 . H er e, Chavar r i d i d notde vel op t he r ec or d t o s upporthi s i nef f ec t i ve assi st ance cl ai m by f i l i ng a m ot i on f ornew t r i al . A s such, t her e i s no evi dence i n the rec o rd de m o n strati n g w h y tr i a l c o u n se l d i d n o t hir e a m i ti g a ti o n sp e c i a l i st, th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e i n th e re c o rd i l l u m i n a ti n g th e e x te n t o f tri a l c o u n s e l ’s in v e s t ig a t io n in t o C h a v a r r i’s b a c k g r o u n d a n d lif e c ir c u m s t a n c e sf o rp o s s ib le m i t i gat i ng e vi den ce , nori s t her e a ny e vi den cei n t he r ec ord t hatm i t i gat i ng2 ... Chavar r i ’ s ar gum ent r el i eshe avi l y on W i ggi n s v. Sm ith , 539 U. S. 510, 1 2 3 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ). W i ggi ns i s pr ocedu r al l y di st i ngu i shabl e f r om t hi s case bec aus e t he pet i t i one ri n t hatca ses oughtpos t - con vi ct i on r el i efi n w hi ch he p re s e n te d t e s ti m o n ys u p p o rti n g h i si n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m . Id . a t516– 17, 1 2 3 S . C t . a t2 5 3 2

– 3 3 . H e r e , C h a v a r r i r a is e sh isin e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e c la im on di r ec tap pea l w i t h a s i l entr ec or d. 5 e v i d e n c e e x i s te d to b e d i s c o v e re d b ya m i ti g a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t. T h e s i l e n t re c o rd i s th u s n o t su ffi c i e n tl yd e v e l o p e d to a l l o w u s to d o m o re th a n sp e c u l a te a s to w h y tr i a l c o u n se l d i d n o t hir e a m i ti g a ti o n sp e c i a l i st. 2 S e eMa ta , 226 S. W . 3d at43 2. A l t ho u g h th er e ar e r ar e cases i n w hi ch a r ecor d i s suf f i ci entf oran app el l at e c ourtt o m ak e a de ci si on on t he m er i t s ofan i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o f coun sel cl ai m , t hi s i s noto n e oft hose cases; t r i al counsel ’ s al l eged i nef f ec t i ven es s i s nots o a ppa r ent f r om t he r ec or d t hat “t he i nhe r entne ed f or r e ve r s a l i s ob vi ous. ” S e eRem sb urg v. S tate , 219 S . W . 3d 541, 546 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f’d ). B e c a u s e C h a v a r r i’s a lle g a t io n o f in e f f e c t iv e n e s s isn o tf ir m lyf o u n d e d in th e re c o rd , h e h a sn o t o v e r c o m e t h e s tro n g p re s u m p ti o n th a t tri a l c o u n s e l ’s c o n d u c t fe l l w i th i n t h e w i d e ra n g e o f re a s o n a b l e re p re s e n ta ti o n . S ee Sal i nas , 16 3 S . W . 3d at 7 40 . C havar r i ’ s i nef f ect i veness cl ai m thus f ai l s un dert he f i r st Str i ckl and p ro n g . See Str

i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t688–89 , 1 04 S. Ct . a t2065 ; Gri j alvav. S tate , N o. 02- 08- 000 18- C R, 2008 W L 460225 2, at*1 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h O ct . 16, 2008 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. , notde si gnated f or6

p u b l i c a ti o n ) (a d d re s s i n g i d e n ti c a l i s s u e a n d re a c h i n g s a m e c o n c l u s i o n ); see al so Tei x ei ra v. S tate , 8 9 S .W .3 d . 1 9 0 , 1 9 3

– 9 4(T e x . A p p .— T e x a rka n a 2 0 0 2 , p e t. r ef ’ d) ( over r u l i n g a rgum entt hatcounsel w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o r equest t hata se xua l of f ens e e xpe rtbeap poi nt ed t o a ss i statt r i alori n m i t i gat i on of p u n is h m e n tb e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o s h o w in g in t h e re c o r d t h a ta n e x p e rtw o u ld h a v e t e s t if ie d in a m a n n e r t h a t w o u ld h a v e b e n e f it t e d a p p e lla n t ). W e o v e r r u le C havar r i ’ s sol e poi ntand af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent s. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 2, 2009