1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 253- CR CH R I S T OP HE RS CH R OE DE R AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 211TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on C hr i st ophe rSchr oed erpl eade d gui l t y t o t w o of f ens es , as sa ul tan d aggr avat ed assaul t , and w as sent enced byt he j ur y t o concu r r entni ne- year sent ences and a $1 , 00 0 fi ne f oreach oft he t w o coun t s. I n t w o poi nt s,2

S c h ro e d e r a s s e rtsth a t h e re c e i v e d i n e ffe c ti v ea s s i s ta n c eo f c o u n s e l . W ea ffir m . II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry O n Novem ber29, 2007 , Schr oed erw asi ndi cte d i n Dent on Count y on tw o fel o n yco u n ts, se c o n d d e g ree as sa u l t an d fi rst de g ree ag g rav a ted as sa u l t, agai nsthi s w i f e, Br andy S chr oeder . O n Jun e 23 , 20 08 , Sch r oederpl eaded gui l t y t o b ot h f el ony co unts , f i l ed an appl i cat i on f orpr obati on, and r equest ed a j u ryto a s s e s sp u n i s h m e n t. D u r in g th ep u n i s h m e n t p h a s e , th ej u ryh e a rd d e t a i l s o f t h e t w o c h a r g e d o f f e n s e s f r o m t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r , t he bac k- up of f i cer , Br andy, and S chr oeder . I tal so hear d abou tsever al pr i orconvi ct i ons, asw el l ass eve r aluna dj udi ca t ed as sa ul t i ve cr i m esan d ba d a ct s aga i ns tBr and y t hatw er e notr eport ed t o t he pol i ce. U ndert he appr opr i at e sect i ons oft he penal code, t he j ur y w a s al l ow ed to s e n te n c e S c h ro e d e r to te n y e a rsfo r th ea s s a u l t c o n v i c ti o n a n d tw e n tyy e a rs fo r th e a g g ra v a te d a s s a u l t c o n v i c ti o n . SeeTex . Pen a l Cod eAnn . §§ 1 2. 33–. 34 ( V er non 20 03 ) , §§ 22 . 01 , 22 . 02 ( V er non Su pp. 20 08 ) . The j ur y set pun i shm entatni ne year s f oreach count and ass essed a $2 , 00 0 fi ne. F o llo w in g s e n t e n c in g a n d a n u n h e a r d a m e n d e d m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l, S c h r o e d e rf ile d h isn o t ic e o ft h isa p p e a l.3 I I I . I neff ect ive A ssi st ance ofC oun sel I n t w o poi nt s, S chr oederargues t hath e w as den i ed ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofco uns elbe ca us e hi s t r i alcouns el( 1) f ai l ed t o pr ope r l y obj ec tt o e vi den ceof pas tco nvi ct i onsi n a cc or dan cew i t h a rt i cl e 37. 07( 3) ( i ) oft he Texa s C odeof C r i m i nal Pr ocedu r e and ( 2) f ai l ed t o pr oper l y obj ect t o hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al evi dence ofSchr oed er ’ s ext r ane ousm i sc onduc ti n a cc or dan cew i t h r ul e 403 oft he Tex as Rul es ofEvi dence. A . St andar d ofRev i ew To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , an app el l antm us ts how by a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den cet hatco uns 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 eisa 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 4 S . 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. 2 0 0 5 ); Ma l

lett 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 y o f t 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 ance4

w a sre 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. at688–89, 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 fr e a s o n a b l e re p re s e n ta ti o n . Sal i nas , 163 S. W . 3d a t740; Ma l le tt, 65 S. W . 3d at63. A r evi ew i ng c ou rtw 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 lu a t e t h e m e r it so fa n in e f f e c t iv ea s s is t a n c ec la im . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3 d at 8 13– 14. “ 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 a t 6 3) . To ov er com e t he pr esum pt i on of r easonabl e pr of essi onal as si st ance, “anyal l ega t i on ofi nef f ec t i ven es s m us tbef i r m l y f ounde d i n t he 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. ” Id. ( quot i ng Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813) . I ti s not appr opr i a t e f ora n a pp e l l a t e c ou rtt o s i m pl y i nf e ri ne f f e c t i vea s s i s t a nc eb a sed u p o n u n c l e a r p o rti o n so f th e re c o rd . Ma ta v. S tate , 2 26 S. W . 3d 425, 432 (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 s a 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 th ed e fen d a n t of a fai r t ri a l , i .e., a tri a l w i th a re l i a b l e re s u l t. S tri ckl an d , 46 6 U . S . at6 8 7 , 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . I n ot her2 ... In re s p o n s e t o h isc o u n s e l’s q u e s t io n a b o u tw h e t h e rh ew a n t e d t o t e ll

h isv e r s io n o fw h a th a p p e n e d t h en ig h t o f t h ea s s a u lta n d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u lt 5 w or ds , an ap pel l antm us ts how t her e i s a r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y t hat , butf or coun sel ’ s unpr of essi onal er r or s, the r esul to fthe proceedi ng w oul d have been d i ffe re n t. Id. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . Ar easonab l e p r 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 ec o n fi d e n c ei n th eo u tc o m e . Id. , 1 0 4S . C t. at20 68 . Th e ul t i m at e f ocus ofouri nqu i ry m ustbe on t he f und am ent al f ai r ness o f th e p ro c e e d i n g i n w h i c h th ere s u l t i sb e in g c h a lle n g e d . Id. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2070 . B . T h eF i rst P ron g o f St r i ck l and W e f ir s tn o t e t h a ti fc o u n s e l ’s re a s o n sf o rh isc o n d u c td o n o ta p p e a rin t he r ecor d and t her e i s atl eastthe po ssi bi l i t y t hatthe conduct coul d have been gr ounde d i n l egi t i m at e t r i als t r at egy , w e w i l l de f ert o c ou ns el ’ s dec i si onsan d d e n yre l i e f o n a n i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c ec l a i m o n d i re c t a p p e a l . Ga rzav. S tate , 213 S. W . 3d 338, 348 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2 007 ) . A l t hough couns el ’ s r ea so nsf or hi s ac t i onsori nt ent i onsw i t h r ega r d t o t he com pl ai ned
- ofs t i pu l ati onsan d una dj udi ca t ed bad ac t s do no ta pp ea ri n t he r ec or d, i ti s app ar entf r om t he r ecor d t hat at l east one of coun sel ’ s t r i al st r at egi es w as t o g e t S c h r oeder pr obati on by show i ng t hatS chr oederh ad accept ed r esponsi bi l i t y f orand w as so rryfor h is p a st m i sc o n d u c t. 2T h e r e f o r e , o n t h er e c o r d p r e s e n t e d h e r e , wecha r ged he r e, Schr oed err epl i ed, “ I w oul d r at herj us tac ce ptr es pons i bi l i t y f or

t he cha r gesatha nd. I kn ow t hatI di d w r ong, an d I kn ow I ’ ve do ne a l otof w ro n g th i n g s .”

3 ... Secti on 3( i ) st at es t hat“[ e] vi dence of an adj udi cat i on f orcondu ctt hat i s a v i ol at i on ofa pen all aw oft he gr adeofm i sd em ea norpu ni sh abl e b y con f i nem enti n j ai l i s adm i ss i bl e o nl y i ft he con duc tupon w hi ch t he adj udi ca t i on i s based occur r ed on or aft erJanuar y 1, 19 96 . ” SeeTex. C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 3 7 .0 7 (3 )(i ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 6 c a n n o t s a yth a tS c h r o e d e r re c e i v e d i n e ffe c ti v ea s s i s ta n c e . See Sal i nas , 163 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 ; Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t813. C . T h eS e c o n d P ron g o f St r i ck l and 1 . A rti c l e3 7 .0 7 (3 )(i ) o f th eT e x a sC o d eo f C ri m i n a lP ro c e d u re I n h i s f i rst p o i n t, S c h roe d e r co m p l a i n s th a t his tr i a l co u n se l sti p u l a ted to th e ad m i ss i o n o f S tate ’s E x h i b i ts 1 5 , 1 6 , a n d 1 7 , w h i c h w e re e v i d e n c eo f t w o con vi ct i onsf ordr i vi ng w hi l e l i ce ns e sus pen ded and one convi ct i on f orev adi ng ar r es t , t hathe as se rt s ar e i nad m i ss i bl e underart i cl e 37 . 07( 3) ( i ) oft he cod e o f cr i m i nalpr oce dur e b ec aus e t heyw er e t i m e- bar r ed. 3 T h e S ta te i n i ti a l l y a rg u e s th a t, a l th o u g h n o t a p p a re n t o n i ts fa c e , t h is a rt i c l e o n l yap p l i e s to j u v e n i l e co n v i c ti o n s w h e n c o n s id e re d i n l i g h t of i ts l egi sl at i ve hi st or y. W e need no taddr ess t hi s ar gum entt o di spose oft hi s i ssue. Dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on , Sc hr oe de ra dm i tt e d t ha tSt a t e ’ sE xh i bi t s15 a nd 16 w er e hi s convi ct i ons and sent ences f ordr i vi ng w hi l e hi s l i cense w as suspended a n d th a t S tate ’s E x h i b i t 1 7 w a s h i s c o n v i c ti o n an d se n ten c efor e v a d i n g arres t.4 ... S c h roe d e r t e sti fi e d tha t he p l e a d e d g u i l ty b u t t h a t h e rea l l y w a s n o t. 7 H e a ls o a d m itt e d t o a n a s s a u ltc h a r g e a g a in s t h im a st o C h e ry l B r a d s h a w (h is s te p m o th e r), E x h i b i t 1 8 ; a c o n v i c ti o n fo r d i s o rd e rl yc o n d u c t, E x h i b i t1 9 ; a convi cti on f orevadi ng ar r est , Exhi bi t20 ; a char ge ofdr i vi ng w hi l e l i cense su sp end ed, Exh i bi t21; gui l tf orpos se ssi on ofm ar ij uan a, Exh i bi t22; gui l tf or f a m i l y vi ol e nc e , E xh i bi t23 4 (S c h r o e d e r p u s h e d B r a n d yd o w n a n d k ic k e d h e rin t h e n e c kw it h h iss t e e l-t o e b o o t s ); p r o b a t io n c o m p le t io n f o rt w o d r iv in g w h ile lic e n s e s u s p e n d e d o f f e n s e s , E x h i b it s2 4a n d 2 5 ; a n d a c o n v ic t io n f o rf a m ily v i o l e n c e , E x h i b i t 2 6 (S c h ro e d e r p u n c h e d , c h o k e d , a n d p u s h e d B ra n d ys o h a rd t h a ts h e h a d to g o to th e h o s p i ta l ). T h e re fo re , S c h ro e d e r a d m i tte d to h is con duc t con t ai ned i n Exhi bi t s 15, 16, an d 17 abo utw hi ch he now co m pl ai ns and t o a ser i es ofot hergui l t y pl eas, convi ct i ons, and sent ences. Schr oed er ’ s com pl ai ntce nt er s on t w o co nv i ct i onsf ordr i vi ng w i t h a su sp end ed l i ce ns e a nd a co nvi ct i on f orev adi ng a r r es t . The sam e t ypeof char ges w er e cont ai ned i n exhi bi ts th a t a re nott he subj ectoft hi s appeal , as w e rem o res e ri o u sc h a rg e s , s u c h a sa s s a u l t a n d fa m i l yv i o l e n c e . T h e re fo re , w e canno tsay th a t t her e i s a r easonabl e pr obab i l i t y t hatbutf ort hese exhi bi t s, eve n i fi tw aspr of es si ona l er r ort o st i pul at e t o t hei radm i ss i on, w hi ch w e d o not dec i d e , a d i f f e r e n t o u t c o m e w o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d . W e h o l d t h a t t h es ec ond5 ... “ A l t hough r el eva nt , ev i den ce m ay be exc l ude d i fi t s pr oba t i ve val ue

i s substanti

al ly outwei

ghed b ythe d a n g e r of unfai r prej udice , conf us i on oft he i ssues, orm i sl eadi ng t he j ur y, orby consi der at i ons ofu ndu e del ay, orneedl ess p re s e n ta ti o n o f c u m u l a ti v e e v i d e n c e .” T e x . R . E v i d . 4 0 3 (e m p h a s i ss u p p l i e d ). 8 pr ong o fStr

i ckl and i s not m et , t hati s, i ft he st i pul at i on t o t he adm i ss i on oft he E x h ib it s w a s e r r o r , it w a s n o t s o s e r io u s a s t o d e p r iv e t h e d e f e n d a n to fa f a ir t r ia l. 2. Ru l e403 oft he T exas Ru l es ofEvi dence I n hi s se con d poi nt , Schr oed eras se rt s t hathi s cou ns elw asi nef f ec t i ve f or no t obj e c t i ng t o f ou r s pe c i f i c un a dj ud i c a t e d ba d a c t sf r om 1998 u nd e rr ul e403 oft he T exas Ru l es ofEvi dence. 5 T h o s ea c t sw e r et h a tS c h r o e d e r(a ) w o u ld “g e t p hysi cal ” w i t h hi s f i st s w i t h B r andy o n a w eekl y basi s w hi l e she w as pr egn ant ; ( b) w oul d drag B r andy on t he gr ound w hi l e s he w asei ghtm ont hs pr egnan t ; ( c) l ocked B r andy o utoft hei rhouse keepi ng heraw ay fr om her n e w b o r n a sa re s u lto fa f ig h t ; a n d (d ) c h o k e d B r a n d ys o h a r d w h ile s h eh e ld th e i r n e w b o rn b a b yth a t s h e p a s s e d o u t a n d d ro p p e d th eb a b yto th efl o o r. W e w oul d f i r stnot e t hatt he f ouri nci den t s abo ve ar e onl y a port i on oft he una dj udi ca t ed bad ac t s t es t i f i ed t o at t r i al . O t her s i ncl ude d Schr oed erch oki ng Br and y w hi l e s he w ason t he f l ooran d t ea r i ng t he sk i n on herha nd w hi l e s he t r i ed t o def end her sel f ; punch i ng and hi tt i ng Brandy i n t he head and sl appi ng her dow n t o t he f l oort o t he ext entshe w entt o t he hospi t al w i t h t hr ee br oken r i bs;9

t ryi ng t o push h e r a n d h e rcari nt o t he hou se w i t h hi s Sur bur ban t o keep her f r om l ea vi ng; punchi ng Br and y i n t he hea d “al ot ” bec aus e h e l i ke d t o; pus hi ng Br and y i nt o t he w al l ha r d e nough t o de ntt he w al l ; w avi ng a “ bi g k ni f e”ar ound and cut t i ng t he pur sest r apsof fBr and y’ s ar m w i t h he rda ught ers t and i ng “ r i ght t her e” ; hi tt i ng Br and y w i t h a “ bi g he avydr i l l , ” w hi ch ca us ed t he dr i l l bi tt o go i n to h e r arm an d ca u se d p ro fu s e b le e d i n g an d a s c a r; an d b e i n g m e a n to Br and y’ s chi l dr en. A s i n ouran al ys i s above, w e w i l l co nce nt r at e o n t he se con d pr ong o f Str i ckl and, t hati s, t he “f ocus ofouri nqu i ry m ustbe on t he f und am ent al f ai r ness oft he pr oceedi ng i n w hi ch t he r esul t i s bei ng chal l enged . ” Str i ckl and, 466 U . S. at697, 104 S . Ct . at2070 . Schr oed erpl ea ded gui l t y t o a ss aul tan d agg r ava t ed as sa ul t . Seve r al e xhi bi t s w er e i nt r oduc ed con ce r ni ng pr evi ous c h a rg e sa n d c o n v i c ti o n s . N u m e r o u s o th e r u n a d j u d i c a te d b a d a c tsw e re i n tro d u c e d i n to e v i d e n c e th ro u g h te s ti m o n y . U n d e r t h e s e c i rc u m s ta n c e s , w e hol d once agai n t hat even i f t he f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t hese fo u r un a d j udi cat ed b a d ac ts w a s e rr o r, w h i c h w e d o n o t de c i d e , th eerro r w a s n o t so se ri o u s a s to dep r i ve t he def end antofa f ai rt r i al . Schr oed er ’ s se con d poi nti s ove r r ul ed.10 I V . Concl us i on H avi ng hel d t hatbot h pr ong s oft he Str i ckl and t est ar e not m etby ei t her o f S c h ro e d e r’stw o p o i n ts , w eo v e rru le h is p o i n tsa n d a ffir m th etri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 16, 2009