i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 59 4- CR Ve lma Ad a m CA STIL LO , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 227th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-0093 Honora ble Phili p A. Kazen Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Fe bruar y 18, 2009 AFF I RMED A jury convicted appellant Velma Castillo of assaulting a public serva nt. The t ri al co urt assessed punishment at a $1,500.00 fine a nd confine ment in the Texas Depar tm en t of Criminal J ustice, Institut ional Division, probate d for f ive y ear s. Castill o raises one issue on appea l, claiming he r t ri a l c ouns e l w a s in e ff

e c tiv e . We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND A police dispatc her se nt San Antonio Police Offic ers Rober t Valenzuela a

nd Billy Mussey to respond to a c all about a stolen truc k. After investigating, they

arr ested Joe Ca still o. Soon after the ar rest, appe llant Velma Castillo, Castil lo’s ex-wife, ar rived. Appe llant beg an to threaten the neig hbor who ha d called police about the stolen truck, so of fice rs dec ided to arr est her f or “re taliation ag ainst the witness to another felony case .” Dur ing the ir attempt to arr est and ha ndcuff her, O ffice r Valenzuela testified appellant told him she was “g oing to kick [him] in [ his] balls,” af ter which she lifted one of her knees a nd “just as har d [and] as strong as she c ould . . . got [him] in the g roin.” Of

fice r Va lenzuela stated that both he a nd appellant f

ell to the g round. Appellant claimed he r k ne e a c c ide nta lly

str uc k O ff ic e r V a le nzu e la

duri ngthe fa ll. A N A L Y SIS Applicable Law The de fenda

nt bear s the burden of proving ineffe ctive assist ance by a pre pondera nce of the
e v id e n ce. Ex parteCha nd le r, 18 2 S. W.3 d 3 50 , 3 54 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Bone v . State, 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A defe ndant establishes ineffe ctive assi s t an ce of
co unsel by

showing trial counsel’ s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt and the def icient per formanc e prejudice d him. Strickland v. W ashington, 46 6 U. S. 6 68 , 6 94 (1 98 4) ; Bone, 77 S.W .3d at 833. To show counsel’ s perf

ormanc e wa s deficie nt, the defendant must show the per formanc e fe ll below an objective standa

rd of r easona

bleness. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W .3d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T ex . Crim. App. 19 99 ); Ba dil lo v . S

tat e , 2 55 S.W. 3d

12 5, 12 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n Ant on io 200 8, no pe t.) . We pr e su me trial counsel a cted within the prope r ra ng e of r easona

ble and pr ofessional a ssistance a nd that his trial decisions wer e based on s o u n d s t rateg y . Salinas v. State, 163 S.W .3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App.04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 3- 2005). The de fenda

nt can ove rcome this presumption only by showing his alleg ations of ineffe ctiveness a

re f irmly founded in the r ecor d, and the rec o rd af firmatively

demonstrates the alleg ed inef

fec tiveness. Thompson, 9 S
. W
. 3 d a t81 4; Ba di llo , 255 S.W .3d at 129. We will not speculate as to the ba sis for counsel’s actions and there fore if the re cord is silent on the re asoning behind counse l’s actions, we will deny relief
. Ba dil lo , 2 55 S.W. 3d

a t 12 9; Stults v. State, 23 S.W .3d 198, 208 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, pet. re f’d)
. T o show counsel’ s deficie nt perf ormanc e pre

judiced him, a defe ndant must de monstrate there is a rea sonable proba bility that, but for c ounsel’s unprof

essional er

rors, the r esult of t he procee ding would have been differe nt. Mi tc he ll v. State, 68 S.W .3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Fa ilure t o prove either def icient per formanc e or pre judice is fata l to any

complaint of ineff

ective a ssistance. Strickland, 46 6 U. S. a t 70 0; Ba dil lo , 255 S.W .3d at 129. No c o u rt h as ever interpre ted the standa rd for revie wing trial counsel’ s perf ormanc e to m ean a

defe ndant is entitled to “err orless or pe rfe ct counse l.” Ex Parte W elborn, 785 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). V oir Di re Appellant first c ontends her tr ial counsel wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he failed to de velop the possible biases of thre e potential jurors, K arla Escobar , J ose Ramos, a

nd Mauricio Her

nandez, who
we re c ho se n to se rv e on

the jur y . App e lla

nt co mpl a ins thi s f

a ilure pr e c lud e d c ha lle ng e s f or c a us e and an intellig ent use of pe remptory challeng es. When the State asked Ms. E scobar , a Be x ar County felony probation off

icer , whether

there
was a ny thing a bout her job that would cause her to be unfair to the State or the def endant she responde d “No.” She also told appellant’s trial c ounsel that dea ling wit h p ro b ationers would not04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 4- keep he r fr om being a fa ir and impartial juror . When appellant’s tria l counsel ask ed wh ether she would find a police office r’s testimony more c redible tha

n t h at o f another

witness, Ms. Escobar stated that it depende d, but there w as a chanc e. She never explained under what circumstanc es she might find a

n office r’s testimony

m o re cr ed i b l e than that of another w itness. After he aringher response , appellant’ s trial counsel told the trial court he wanted to spe ak wit h M s . E s cobar individually

at the bench. He then went on to question the next juror. Howeve r, whe n all individual voir dire wa s complete and the trial court asked eac h counsel who they neede d to talk to at the bench, appellant’ s counsel did not ask to speak to Ms. Escoba r. Duri ngqu e sti on ingby

the State , M r. Ramos a dmi tte d h e ha d fr ie nd s and fa mil y wo rk ingin law enf orce ment, but said this would n o t au t o m ati cally cause him to believe the def endant committed the crime – he would have to he ar the evidenc e. Mr. Ramos also stated he had visited friends a nd family who wer e in the hospital as a result of assaults and had attended “a lot of office rs [si c] funera ls, too.” But whe n asked if the se experienc es would make him inclin ed t o find the de fe nd ant guil ty , h e sa id n o, the State wo uld have to p ro ve the c a se be y on d a re a so nable do ub t. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ouns e l di d n ot a sk

Mr . Ra mos any qu e sti on s at th a t ti me , b ut d ur ing in di vi du al vo ir dir e , a pp e lla nt’ s c ouns e l a sk e d “ Whic h is the g e ntl e man th a t ha d a lot of fa mil y in law e nf

or c e me nt? Was that y ou, sir? ” An unidentifie d juror res p o n d ed an d appellant’ s counsel aske d that juror whether having family and friends in law enf orce ment would cause him to place more importance
on an o ff ic e r’ s te sti mony

or to c on sid e r t

he te sti mony

mor e c re dib le . T he jur or re pli e d, “ Pr ob a

bly not . . . I ’d ana ly

ze it more, but Iwouldn’t favor them more.” Appe l l an t ’s t ri al counsel a sked the juror what he meant by

“ana ly zing it more,” a

nd the juror sa id it meant he would listen to both sides
car efully . He a lso stated he would not hold an officer ’s t estimony to any highe r or lower standar d04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 5- simply beca use he w as a police office r. Thoug h the juror was not identified on the re cord, only one juror – Mr. Ramos – cla imed to have “ a lot” of f riends and f

amily in law enf

orce ment. Ma ur ic io H e rn and e z, a po lic e of fi c e r, wa s the ne xt jur or

qu e sti on e d. Th e State a sk e d h im if he ha d hear d the exchang e with Mr
. Ramos a nd whether he would also require the State to prove its case be y ond a re asonable doubt before finding the def endant guilty . Offic er H erna ndez said he would. Appellant’s c ounsel did not ask Offic er H erna ndez any questions. Appellant’s c laim reg arding Mr. R amos is without merit beca use counsel did ex actly

what appellant c omplains counsel fa iled to do. Trial counse l individually questioned Mr. Ramos about his ties to law enfor ceme nt a nd explored whether those ties would cause him to give more cre dence to a police of

fice r’s testimony . Mr. Ramos told counsel he would not favor an off icer ’s testimony more than that of any

other witness. Tr ial counsel attempted to develop a possibl e b i as b y Mr. R a m o s , b u tM r . R a m o s d e n i e d an y b i a s i n f a v o r o f a p o l i c e o f f i c e r o r h i s t e s t i m o n y. A c c o r d i n g l y, appellant ha s not established by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that counse l’ s p er formance wa s defic ient. See Chandler , 1 82 S.W. 3d a t 35 4; Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 833. Tr ia l c ouns e l’ s f

a ilure to f ur the r q ue sti on Ms. Es c ob ar an d q

ue sti on Of fi c e r H e rn and e z is somewhat troubling
. Howeve r, i t would be pure speculation to hold t rial counse l’s perf ormanc e wa s de fi c ie nt. Tr ia l co un se l e ff e c tiv e ly qu e sti on e d a

no the r m e mbe r o f t

he ve nir e a

bo ut h e r b ia se s,
e xpos inga

po te nti a lly

bia se d ju ro r: Trial counse l: Does any

body her e o n t h e jury

panel f eel that if a

n office r took the stand in a uniform, that they would hold . . . their testimony to be more c redible tha

n a s to – a s o pp os e d to a

lay wi tne ss? Do e s a

ny bo dy feel th at wa

y ? Ye s, ma ’a

m. You’re J uror Numbe r?04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 6- Potential J uror: I ’m 31.

. . . Potential J uror: I

wasn’t thinking that I ’d hold the m mor e cre dible, but my fathe r wa s in s e c ur ity

and he a c tua lly g ot a ssa

ult e d, and I ’m a lit tle se ns iti ve on that.
. . . An d my uncle is a police office r and w as assa ulted.

. . . Trial Counsel: Okay . Your father wa s assaulted. Do you know the cir cumstance s reg ardingthat assault? L ike what ha ppened? Potential J uror: He was stopping a robbe ry . . . . And in the proce ss of stopping, he g ot assaulted by

the – . . . by

three people.
Tr ia l Co un se l: A nd y our unc le , do y ou kn ow the c ir c ums tanc e s r e g ard inghis a ssa ult ? Potential J uror: No, I

don’t know exactly . Imean I just know he was injure d. Tr ia l Co un se l: We ll, ba se d o n th a t kn ow le dg e y ou have , h ow e ve r l imi te d it is, wo uld that c a us e y ou . . . no t to be fa ir

and imp art ia l in

re nd e ri nga

de c isi on in a c a se s p e c i f i c a l l y r e g ar d i n g a s s a

u l t i n g a p o l i c e o f f i c e r o r p u b l i c s e r v an t ? Potential J uror: I ’m not for sure . I ’m just very – I ’m very sensitive with that, and I me an , it ju s t h a s a f

f e c te d me b e f o r e in th e p a s t, s o I ’ m n o t c o mp le te ly s u r e a b o u t [ it ]. Trial counse l asked to spea k to this juror at the bench and asked her if she could be fair a nd impartial g ive n h e r e xpe ri e nc e s. She sa id she “ pr ob a bly c ou ldn ’t ,” bu t a g re e d w iththe State tha t sh e wo uld not automatically

find appe llant guilty , would base he r decision on the evidenc e, and w ould hold the State to its burden of proof . Trial counse l’s questioning of this potential juror demonstrates he had a cle ar unde rstanding of the potential biase s that exi sted and how to e x pose them out.04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 7- Trial counse l could have decided not to ask additi onal questi ons of Ms
. Escobar and Of fice r Her nandez base d o n t h ei r demeanor, tone, a nd body lang uag e. Se e Mo on e

yv . S tat e , 817 S.W .2d 693, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that demea nor, tone of voice, etc. are important fac tors to c on sid e r i n ma

kin g vo ir dir e de c isi on s) . T ri a l c ounsel wa s n e ve r a ff or de d a n o pp or tun ity to
ex p l ai n h i s d ec i s i o n . W i t h o u ts u ch ex p l an at i o n , we wo u l d b e f o rc edt o s p ec u l at e a s t o h i s re as o n i n g. Be cause appellant’ s alleg ations about i neff ectivene ss are not firmly founded in the record a nd the
rec ord does not af

firmatively

demonstrate in effectivene ss, he has fa iled to meet his burden. See Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d

a t 81 4; Ba dil lo , 255 S.W .3d at 129.

Admiss ion of

Pho tog ra phs Appellant ne xt c o nte n d s h e r tria l c o u nsel was inef

fec tive beca

use he introduc ed into evidenc e three photogr aphs of a

ppellant’s house. A

ppellant ar g ues trial counse l should not have introduc ed the photog raphs into evidenc e bec ause the State used them t o it s a d v a ntag e duringcross-e x amination and closing argument. Duri ngc ouns e l’ s d ir e c t e xami natio n o f ap pe lla nt, he a sk e d h e r t o id e nti fy thr e e ph oto g ra

ph s. Appellant testified they depicted “the front of t he gar ag e and the nex t door neig hbor’s house w here the tr uc k w a s b e fo re ,” “ ins ide the g ara g e , look ing int o the fr on t do or ,” and “ the fr on t of

the ho us e from ac ross the stree t.” Afte r the photog raphs we re a dmitted, appellant’s trial c ounsel published the m to the jur

y , sta tin g “ No w, we have the ph oto g ra ph s, so that way [the jur or s] knowa lit tle bit about what y ou’re talking a bout, the lay out.” Appellant’ s counsel then e licited testimony from appellant about what happene d the day she was arr ested. This included havingappellant de scribe wher e people wer e standing relative to the g ara g e.04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 8- The State used one of the photogr aphs during its c ross-examination of appellant to ge t her to admit the drivewa

y was on a n incline leading into the g ara g e, which w ould have a llowed Mary L ou Rodrigue z to s ee the drivewa y and into the g ara g e even if she was standing acr oss the street. During its closing ar g ument, the State used this to counter a ppellant’s ar g um en t t h at Mary L ou Rodrigue z’s could not have see n appellant a ssault Office r Va lenzuela. Counsel’s use of the photog raphs to assist t h e j u ry in understandingappellant’ s testimony
wa s a so und st rat egy . Tr ia l c ouns e l’ s in tr od uc tio n a nd us e of the ph oto g ra

ph s w a s n ot “ so outrag eous that no compe tent attorney would have e ng ag ed in it.” Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 57 S.W .3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), cert. de nied , 537 U.S. 1195 (2003). That another attorney in hindsight – afte r the State turne d the evidenc e to its advantage

– m i ght have de cided not to introduce the photogr aphs, is insufficient to establish ineff ective assistance of

counsel. Se e Mi nie l v . S tat e , 831 S.W .2d 310, 325 (Tex
. C ri m . Ap p . 1992), cert de nied , 506 U.S. 885 (1992). Ac cording ly , the introduction of the photog raphs of the front of

appellant’ s home will not su p p o rt a claim of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. No Objec tion t

o Prejudicial Evidence During the State’s cr oss-examination of appellant’s nephew, the State asked if the nephew knew a ppellant was “ intending to sue the San Antonio Police Depa rtment” ba sed on the e vents that le a d to he r a

rr e st. He re pli e d h e ha d n o id e a wh a t sh e wa s goi ngto d o. Whe n th e State c ro sse xami ne d a

pp e lla nt, it a sk e d if

sh e wo uld

be c la imi ng pa in an d suf

fe ri ng wh e n she fi le d h e r l a ws uit ag ainst the City

of San Antonio. Trial counsel objected stating, “We’re not indicating that any body ’s filing a civil la

wsuit.” The trial court overr uled the objection. The State then co n t i n u ed , asking04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 9- appellant if she was g oing to f ile a suit ag ainst the City . Appellant said she would “if [Officer Valenzuela] hurt me . . . whe n Ididn’t do any thing wr ong .” The State then used appe llant’s intent to file a c ivil sui t in its closing argument to challeng e her cre dibilit y . Appellant conte nds trial counsel’s f ailure to object to the testimony cited above , or to object more spec ifically

based on r

ules 402 and 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidenc e re ndere d his assistance ine ff e c tiv e . T he re is not

hin g in the re c or d to expla in co un se l’ s str a te g y fo r his sin g le , n on -s pe c if ic ob je c tio n. With ou t su c h e xplanatio n, we wo uld be fo rc e d to spe c ulate a s to his re a so nin g . Be c a us e appellant’ s alleg ations about ineff ectivene ss are not firmly founded in the record and the re cord doe s
no t a ff ir ma tiv e ly de mon str a te ine ff

e c tiv e ne ss, a

pp e lla nt h a s n ot s us ta ine d he r burd e n and we mus t deny relief
. See Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 4; Ba dil lo , 255 S.W .3d at 129. Inv ita tio n of

Har mful T esti mony The boy friend of

appellant’ s daug hter wa s called by trial counsel as a defe nse witness. The boy friend e ssentially

testified appe llant was not r esisting arr est and the office rs used excessive forc e duri ng the arr e st. On

c ro ss- e xami natio n, the State a sk e d w hat th e bo y fr ie nd saw a pp e lla nt d o w ith he r k ne e . H e re sp on de d th a t w he n ap pe lla nt an d Of fi c e r Va le nzu e la fe ll, a

pp e lla nt’ s k ne e “ fe ll i nto one of the office rs,” imply ing the alleg ed assa ult was rea lly an ac cident. The State’s attorne y then showed the boy friend a

statement he ha d g iven t o i n terna l affa irs and, base d on his readingof the statement, the boy friend a dmitted he told internal aff airs th at appellant ha d “turne d and knee d
so me bo dy

. . . th e Hi sp anic of

fi c e r. ” On re dir e c t, t

ri a l c ouns e l a sk e d th e bo y fr ie nd if it w a s p os sib le that if appe llant’s knee did make contac t w ith a n office r, it c ould ha

ve been f rom the strug g le and the fa ll rather tha

n an intentional act. The boy friend responded that he did not think appellant acte d04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 10- intentionally . This prompted the State, on re -cr oss, to ask whether the boy friend be lieved appe llant
acc identally

kneed the office r in the g roin. When he said “ y es,” the State asked if he thought appellant a cted r eckle ssly – “[l] ike she didn’t mea

n to do it, but she was in rea l close proximi ty and she did put her kne e up.” T he boy friend sa id “y es,” initially , but e x plained appellant did not stick her kne e up, rather a

ny contac t o cc u rr ed d u ri ng the fa ll: “[ f]alling down, a s in the knee hit [the of fi c e r’ s] le g no t, a s in

he r k ne e we nt up to inte nti on a lly kic k him with it.” Th e bo y fr ie nd stu c k to his testimony

despite the State’s be st effor t s t o h av e h i m conce de it was something other than a n
acc ident. Appellant conte nds that by calling the boy friend as a witness and askingif appe llant acted intentionally , the State was a llowed to elicit testimony that appellant a cted r eckle ssly , and then a rg ue to the jury that appellant’ s own witness proved she committed the cha rg ed off ense. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 22.01(a) (1), ( b)(1) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008) (stating that assault on public serva nt c an be committed intentionally , knowing ly , or rec klessly). Acc ording to a ppellant, thi s d em o nstrates ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. We disag ree . Fr om the rec ord, i t is clear trial counsel’ s strateg y

was to establish the off

icer s used excessive forc e, prompting t h e s t ru ggl e that resulted in a f all. Acc ording to the defe nse, it was duringthe
course of the fa ll that appellant’s knee may have a ccide ntally

come into contac t with O ff i cer Va le nzu e la ’s g ro in. Tr ia l c ouns e l c a lle d th e bo y fr ie nd and se ve ra l ot

he r w itn e sse s to su

pp or t th is defe nse. Calling t he boy friend to testify was ther efor e par

t of trial counse l’s overa ll strateg y and defe nse. Without evidenc e to the contr ary , we pr esume this was sound strate g y and counse l’s actions
wer e within the ra

ng e of r easona

ble, p rofe ssional assistance. See Salinas , 163 S.W .3d at 740.04

- 07

- 00 59 4- CR

- 11- Moreove r, despite the State’ s attempt to confuse the boy friend a nd its subsequent argument to the jury , the boy friend c lear ly test i fi ed that any

contac t betwee n appellant’ s knee a nd Offic er Valenzuela’ s g roin was a ccide ntal, a re sult of the fall. This testimony benef itted the defe nse. The State’s attempt to turn the evidence to its advanta g e and convince the jury it supported the State’s
c a se did no t r e nd e r t

ri a l c ouns e l in e ff

e c tiv e . A c c or din g ly , th e de c isi on to c a ll the bo y fri end

a s a witness and have hi m testify appellant did not act intentionally will not support a claim of ineff ective assistance of counse l. C ONCL US I ON B a se d o n the fo re g oin g , we ov e rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s issu e and a ff

ir m the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Do No t Pu

bli sh