### NUM BER 13-08- 0044 0-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 - 

## EDI NBURG
JESU S M A LD ONA DO, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t 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 Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t, Jes us Ma ldo nado, entered an open plea of g uil ty to attempt ed ta mperi ng
w it h or f abr ic ati ng phy si cal ev ide nce. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 37. 09 ( Ver non Su pp. 200 8). Af

ter a he aring on pun ishm ent , the trial court sente nced Mald ona do to tw o y ears'2

conf inem ent and assesse d a $2 ,00 0 f ine. By tw o i s s u es, Maldo nad o con ten ds tha t his
c ou ns el r en de r ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e an d th at he w as de ni ed du e proc es s
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND As this is a mem oran dum opinio n, an d the parties are fa miliar w ith the facts, we w ill not recite the m he re except as nece ssaryto explain the Court's decisi o n a n d the basic
re asons for i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.4. II. I N EFFEC TI VE A

SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL B y h is f ir s tis s u e , Ma ld o n a d o co n t e n d s t h a tt ri a l c o u n s e l p ro vid e d in e f fe c t ive
a ss ist a n ce at h is pu n ish m e n t he a rin g. Sp e cif ica lly, Mal d o n a d o co m p la in s of th e fo llo wing: (1 ) tr ial co unsel fail ed to obj ectto the i ntrodu ct io n o f an extr aneous off ense; ( 2) tr ial
couns el faile d to obj ectto the S tate' s "p re jud ic ial st atements " and "pr eju dic ial arg ument"; and (3) trial coun sel w as inef fective "d ue to the cum ulative ef fect of trial counse l's fa ilure to ob jec t." A . St and ard o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw Claims of i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el a r e ev al ua te d un de r t he tw o- pa rt test
arti cul ated in Str

ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 668, 687 (19 8 4)

. See Goodspee d v. State , 187 S.W .3d 3 90, 3 92 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. The Str ic kl and test requ ir es a show ing by

appel lan t t hat c ounse l' s p er formance w as defici ent o r, i n o ther w ords, that
couns el' s a ss is tanc e f e ll bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of r eason abl eness
. Thompson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 8 0 8, 81 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; see Str ic kl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9, 69 4. Af ter dem onst rating def icient assistance , he must then show tha t the re is a re a s o n able probabi li ty

that , but for couns el' s er ro rs , the re sul t w oul d hav e been different. Thom pson , 9 S. W .3d a t 812 ; see Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 9, 69 4. In de ter mini ng the v ali dit y of3

app ellant 's claim of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel, "a ny judicial revi ew mu st be h ighly deferent ial to tr ial co unsel and av oid the del eter iou s e ff ect s o f hinds ig ht." T h o m pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813

. B. Discuss ion Ma ld o n a d o f ir s ta rg u e s t h a tt ri a l c o u n s e l' s re p re s e n t a t io n fe ll b e lo w a n o bje c t ive sta ndard of r eason abl eness w hen he faile d to obj ectto Det ect iv e Ben Tee d 's tes ti mony that Ma ldo nado w as ar re ste d for "tag g ing " after his ar re st in the c ur re nt c ase. M ald onado appears t o arg ue that tr ial couns el shoul d hav e obj ect ed to the tr ial cour t' s reli ance on th e extraneous ev ide nce in ass ess ing puni shment

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC . An n. ar t. 37. 07 § 3(a) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). Acc ordin g to Det ect iv e T eed, inv est ig ators d is cov er ed th at M ald onado w as off er ing to s ell "g ra ff it i par apher nal ia. " Ba sed on th e i nformati on found on Ma ldo nado' s "M y spac e"
acc ount, D etec ti v e Teed ac q uired a search w ar ra nt for M ald onado' s resi dence and found, among other th in gs, mar kers, spray ca ns, and spec ial ly

made pa inti n "C oke bottl es. " Detect iv e T eed testif ied th at "[ j]ust th e imp lem ent s that w e too k out of the de fend ant 's [M ald onado] apar

tment on a tabl e, a confer ence room table, w as compl etel y fil led w it h i t,
w hil e w e w er e l og g ing ev ide nce in. It w as, i n my ex per ien ce, by

far t he mos t i mplement s that I' v e ev er

tak en atone search w ar ra nt." Ma ldo nado prov ide d a v olu ntar y st atement w her ein he "dis cus sed his i nv olv ement in the t ag g ing , how

he made hi s –

hi s p ain t, how

he s old i t t o oth e r in div idu als

. . . . " Det ect iv e T eed state d that Mal donado "tal ked about sev er al lo cat ion s w hic h he tag g ed out in the comm unity. He talked a b o ut on e do w n ne ar the water, tha t on his My Space [sic] he had dr aw n a hug e ' OA' [O bsc ene Ar ti sts ] and hi s t ag name [ Skr ib] ." Ma ldo nado t est ified4

that "Obs cene Ar

ti sts " w as a ti tl e that he had "c ome up w it h." Sev er al pic tur es proces sed f rom a came ra foun d in Maldon ado 's possessio n w ere ad mitt ed int o e vid ence . Th ese p ic t u re s sh o w th e wo rd s " O A " a n d " S k ri b " p a in t e d o n p o le s , fe n c e s , a n d wa ll s
. De t e c t ive Teed tes ti fied th at M ald onado w as ar re ste d for "tag g ing OA [O b scene Ar ti sts ]"
a p p rox imat ely

one month after

M ald onado w as ar re ste d for the o ff ense in thi s c ase. Det ect iv e Teed s tated thatM ald onado "w as inv olv ed i n ac tual ly sp ra y ing the g ra ff it i w it h – I bel iev e tha t t her e w as four i n d ivid u a ls altog ether , but , y es, they had spray

pai nted g ra ff it i. " M ald onado a dmit ted t hat h e had been ar re ste d ag ain , but s ta te d , "I w as not caug ht t ag g ing ." The tr ial courtacts as the fin der of fact w hen i t as ses ses puni shment

. W illiam s v. State , 958 S.W .2d 844 , 845 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 7, pet

. ref 'd). Under article 37.07, se cti on 3( a) , ev ide nce of ex tr aneous ac ts maybe a dmis si ble dur ing the puni shment phase of a tr ial i f the tr ial co urt det er mines thatth e e vide n ce i s rel ev ant a nd th at t he
extraneous act "is show n bey ond a re asona ble doubt byev ide nce to ha v e been commi tted by the defendant or

for w hic h he coul d be hel d c ri minal ly r espon sibl e , re gardle ss of
w hether he h as pr ev iou sl y

been charg ed w it h or

final ly co nv ic ted o f the c ri me or ac t." T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC . An n. ar t. 37.07 § 3(a)

. Extr aneous -o ff ense ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e for any relev ant purpo se at pu nishm ent if th e fact-f in d e r is sa tisf ied be y ond a reason able doubt that the e xtr aneous off enses or bad act s a re att ri butabl e to the d efendant. Hui zar
v. State , 12 S.W .3d 4 79, 4 81 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; W illiams , 9 5 8 S .W .2d a t 845 ; see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 37.07 §3( a)

. The cour t of cr imi nal appeal s h as int er pr eted article 37. 07, section 3(a) to "require the burde n of proof to be a pplied to a de fend ant 's5

inv olv ement i n the ac t i tse lf, ins tead of the element s of a cri me necess ar y f or a find ing of g uil t." Hal

ey v. State , 173 S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 0 , 515 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). "[T ]he statu torily impos ed burden of proof bey ond a re asona ble doubtdoes not r eq uire the off er ing par ty to ne cessa rily prov e tha t t he ac t w as a c ri minal ac t or thatthe defendant c ommitt ed a
cr ime. " Id. To show ineff ect iv e assi sta nce of couns el base d on the fail ur e to obj ect , M ald onado must show

thatthe tr ial co urt w oul d hav e commi tted er ro r in ov er ru li ng the obj ect ion

. See Ex par te White , 160 S.W .3d 46, 53 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2004)

. Ma ldo nado asse rt s that "no
ev ide nce w as int ro duced show ing , bey ond a re asona ble doubt, that [he] h a d co m m it ted
a s ubseq uent off ense. " H ow ev er , as se t outabov e, D etec ti v e Teed' s t est imony demonst ra ted t hat the extr aneous off ense w as attr ibu tabl e to Ma ldo nado. See H uiz ar , 12 S.W .3d a t 481 ; W

il lia ms , 958 S. W .2 d at 845; Haley , 173 S.W .3d a t 515

. Therefor e, Ma ldo nado ha s not show n tha t t he tr ial co urt w oul d hav e er re d i f it had ov er ru led su ch an obj ect ion

. W

hite , 160 S.W .3d at 53 (find ing trial coun sel notdef icient by fa iling to object to ad missible testim ony). Accordin gly , trial counse l's fa ilure to object to th e trial court's reliance on the extrane ous o f fense in assessing pun ishm ent cann ot con stitute the ba sis of a cl aim of ineffectiv e as si sta nce of couns el. See i d. Ma ldo nado ne xt arg ues that tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e by not obj ect ing to the Stat e's "preju dic ial st atements " a n d " p rejudi ci al arg uments ." He compl ain s t hat t ri al
couns el shoul d hav e obj ect ed w hen the Stat e ask ed him, "Do y ou read t he l etters t o the edi tor w hen j udg es hav e g iv en th ese probati ons a n d c it iz ens of our communi ty sa y they shoul dn'tb e g i v e n p ro b a t i o n , a ta l l , t h e y s h o u l d b e s e n d i n g t h e s e p e o p l e t o j a i l. "6

Ma ldo nado as ser

ts the S tate' s q uest ion i s p re jud ic ial ; how ev er , he does not p ro v ide a c lea r and c onci se arg ument w it h c it ati on to appropr iat e aut hor it y su ppor ti ng hi s a ss erti on. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38 .1(i). Furthermo re, the record in this case is silent regarding counse l's
ex pla nati on for his co nduct ; t her efore, iti s i nsuffici ent t o ov er come a p re su m p tion of
re asona ble ness
. See G oodsp eed , 187 S.W .3d a t 392

. Ma ldo nado fur

ther co mplai ns tha t tr ial co unsel sh oul d hav e obj ect ed to se v er al
re mark s made by

the Stat e dur ing cl osi ng arg ument. How ev er , fail ing to obj ectto a por ti on of the St ate' s c los ing arg um e nt i s g ener all y an i nher entl y

tac ti cal dec is ion thati s "made based on t he w ay

a t ri al is unfoldi ng , t he tr ia l st ra teg y empl oy ed, t he ex per ien ce and jud g ment of the defense at tor ney , and othe r factors." T a y lo r v. Sta te , 9 4 7 S. W .2d 6 98, 704 (Tex. App .–Fo rt W orth 1997 , pet

. ref 'd.) (per curiam ). Moreover, again, the record in thi s c ase does not i ncl ude c ounse l' s e x pla nati on for his co nduct ; t her efore, iti s i nsuffici ent to ov er come a presumpt ion of re asona ble ness
. See G oodsp eed , 187 S.W .3d a t 392

. Fi n a l l y , c i t i n g n u me ro u s i n c i d e n t s w h e r e M a l d o n a d o c l a i ms t r i a l c o u n s e l fa i l e d to obj ect , he comp la in s th at t he "c umulat iv e effectof tr ial co unsel 's fail ur e to obj ectto the Stat e's r epeated i nje cti on i nto t he record of prej udi ci al matters, tog ether w it h his pr eju dic ial cl osi ng arg ument had the cumul ati v e eff ect of de ny ing [M ald onado] any couns el at a ll ." How ever, w hen the reco rd is si lent regarding the mo tiv ation o f co unse l's ta ctical or strategic deci si ons, there i s a stro n g p re sumpti on th at c ounse l act ed reason abl y . See Mallet v. State , 6 5 S. W .3 d 5 9 , 6 3 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) (ci ti n g Thom pson , 9 S.W .3d at 814 ); Johns on v

. St ate , 233 S.W .3 d 109, 116 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2007, no p et.) (c oncl udi ng , abs ent a contr ar y show ing in the record, t hat c ounse l' s fai lure to obj ectto the7

Stat e's arg ument w as par t of a v ali d, c onsi der ed tria l strateg y ); Hen der son v. State , 704 S.W .2d 5 36, 5 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1986, w ri t. re f' d ) (p ro viding thatnot obje cting to p rosecu tor's ope ning state me nt cou ld have bee n trial strategy and thatfailure to ob jec t t o ev er

y i ntroduct ion o f

i m p ro p er

ev ide nce or

q uest ion ing does not ind ic ate ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce) ; see als o St rick lan d , 466 U.S. at 68 9. Beca use th e record in th is
c as e do es n oti nc l ud e c ou ns el ' s ex pl an at i on for h i s c on du c t, i t i s i ns uffi c i en t to o v erc om e a presumpt ion of re asona ble ness
. See G oodsp eed , 187 S.W .3d a t 392

. Ma ldo nado ha s not e sta bli shed that tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e; t her efore, w e ov er ru le his first is sue. III . D U E P R OC ESS R I GHTS By hi s s econd i ss ue, Ma ldo nado cont ends that his due proces s ri g hts w er e v iol ated beca use th e Sta te "o bliterat ed th e line betw een the Sta te as ad v ocat e an d the State as a
w it ness ." Spec ific all y , Ma ldo nado c lai ms t hat t he St ate v iol ated his due proces s r ig hts by (1) making state me nts "which w ere o u t side th e record" , and (2) attem pting to "in sert har mf ul and preju dic ial matte rs i nto t he record." Ma ldo nado has not, how ev er , prov ide d a clear an d con cise argume n t f o r h is conte ntion w ith ap prop riate citatio ns to au tho rities. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i). Furthe rmore , Maldon ado did not raise obje ctions to the State 's act ion s i n the tr ial co urt, about w hic h he now co mplai ns. Therefore, he has not pr eser v ed t h is co n t e n t io n fo r o u r r e vie w. By a sub- is sue, Ma ldo nado cont ends that he w as deni ed due proces s "d ue to the trial court's lack of

n e u t ra lity ." Spe cif ically , Maldon ado argues that the trial court "abandoned i ts impar

ti ali ty " w hen i t q uest ion ed D etec ti v e Teed and M ald onado.8

At t he puni shme n t h e a rin g , t he tr ial co urt as ked Det ect iv e Teed, "Di d I hear y ou ri g ht, in y ou're s ay ing thatafter y ou ta lk ed to him [M ald onado], after y ou ar re ste d hi m and
a p p a re n t ly h e b o n d e d o u t , t h a th e w a s a rr e s t e d a ga in , fo r t a ggi n g a p la c e ? " De t e c t ive Teed r espon ded affirmat iv ely

. The tr ial co urt then asked, "And he w as spray ing or doi ng stu ff l ik e tha t?" Det ect iv e T e e d s ta te d thatM ald onado w as "spray ing the g ra ff it i. " After Ma ldo nado t est ified , t he foll ow ing ex chang e oc cur re d: The Cou rt : Al l ri g ht. Ju st a s econd

. T h e e vide n ce throug h Det

.

[s i c ] Tee d tells me t ha t y ou [ M al do na do ] mi x ed s om e pai nts w it h s om e chemic als thatate aw ay at the sur face. Y ou w er e aw ar e of that , r ig ht? [Maldo nad o]: Yes, sir

. The Co urt: W hy w oul d y ou do that? [M ald onado]: The pur pose of th a t w asn' t real ly to make i t eatthe sur faces. I w oul dn'tuse pai nt t hin ner to thi n the pai nt. The br ake fluid w oul d w or k jus t as g ood a n d it w as chea per. T hat w as the real purp ose of using the bra ke fluid , w as to t hin the thi ck pai nt. The Co urt: But y ou k new thati t w oul d eatthe sur face, r ig ht? [M ald onado]: It – Y eah, I di d. T h e Co u rt : A n d yo u st il l d id ita n ywa y? [Maldo nad o]: Yes, sir

. Th e C o u rt : Know ing th a t i t w o u l d c a u s e t r e me n d o u s damag e to

w hose ev er

proper ty w as tag g ed? [Maldo nad o]: Yes, sir

. The Co urt: Y ou s ti ll di d i t? [Maldo nad o]: Yes, sir

.9

Ma ldo n ado di d notobj ectto the t ri al cour t' s q uest ion s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a); Mo re no v

. St ate , 900 S.W .2d 357, 359 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 1995, no pet .) ( prov idi ng that if the ap pellan t did not obje ct at tri al, the trial court's statem ent s may not be subse quently ch a lle n ged un le ss th e y are f u n d a m e n ta lly er ro n e o u s) (c it in g Br ewer v. State , 572 S.W .2d 719 , 721 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78)). Du e p ro cess re q uires a neut ra l and det ached hear ing body or off ic er
. Burm it v. State , 2 0 6 S. W .3 d 63 9 , 6 4 5 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (ci ti n g G a g n o n v. S carpe lli , 411 U. S.778, 786 (19 73) ). How ev er , a tr ial j udg e has broad di sc re ti on i n mai ntai nin g co ntrol of and ex pedi ti ng a tr ial , and m ay clear up a point of confusi on. Jas per v. Sta te , 61 S. W .3d 413, 421 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2001)

. Here, ev en as sumi ng thatM ald onado h ad obj ect ed to the trial court's q uest ions, th e trial court a s k e d the q uest ions to clarify the w itness's tes ti mony ; t her efore, the q uest ion s w er e per mis si ble

. See i d. ; Br ewer , 572 S.W .2d a t 721 ; Vel asque z v. Sta te , 815 S.W .2d 8 42, 8 46 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1 9 9 1 , no pet .) ( "[I] t has been w ell -e sta bli shed in Tex as
. . . that the t ri al jud g e hi msel f m a y a sk qu est ion s o f
a w it ness i n or der to cl ar ify an is sue or to obtai n a c lea re r ide a of the meri ts of the c ase, as long as the judge ma intain s an imp artial attitu de when ad dr e s s in g such quest ions." ); Si lv a v. State , 635 S.W .2d 775, 778 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1982, pet. r ef'd) ( prov idi ng tha t "it is permissible for the jud ge to ask question s to clarif y a w itness' te stimo ny"). Mo re ov er , t he tr ial co urt di d notbec ome so enta ng led as an a dv ocat e that it coul d not, at the e nd of the proceed ing , mak e an obj ect iv e findi ng
. See Mor eno , 900 S. W .2d a t 360

. The tr ial co urt' s q uest ion s d o noti ndi cat e tha t i t aba ndoned its proper role as a ne utral
ar bit er by bec oming an ad voc a te f o r the State. See B ethany v. Sta te , 814 S.W .2d 4 55,10

462 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 1, pet . ref 'd) (prov iding that f und am ent al fairness is lost w hen the tri al court aban don s its positio n as a neu tral arbite r and assu me s the role of adv ocat e) ; see a lso Burm it , 206 S.W .3d a t 645 ( hol din g thatthe tr ial co urt' s c omments did not re flectbi as, par ti ali ty , or thatthe tr ial j u d g e di d notco nsi der the full ra ng e of puni shment ). Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat the tr ial co urt di d notv iol ate M ald onado' s d ue proces s r ig hts w hen he q uest ion ed D etec ti v e Teed and M ald onado. M ald onado' s s econd is sue is ov er ru led

. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 5 th da y

of Ma rc h, 20 09.