NO. 07-06 -008 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D MA RC H 13, 2 008

_________

_________

_________

___ RACHEL A. GAL LAW AY, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 3 RD DI ST RI CT COU RT OF G RAY COUN T Y; NO . 680 7; H ON ORABLE LEE W ATERS , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Rac hel A. Gal law ay appeal s her conv icti on by jur y of t he thi rd deg re e felon y of fense of injury to a child an d her senten ce tha t include s conf inem entfor six y ears i n th e In s ti tu ti on al D i v i s i on o f t he Te x as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e. W e affi r m.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 22.04 (V er non 200 5)

. At t he ti me of t he i nci dents 1 desc ri bed attr ial , W .G. w as in the s econd g ra de. The record reflect s th a t “ Kel ly ” re fers to K ell y Emor y , a w oman w it h w hom 2 appel lan t and W .G. w ere l iv ing at the t ime. 2 App ellantw as charged by indictm entw ith inte ntion ally and knowi ngly

causing bod ily injuryto her son W .G., a child 14 years or y oun ger, by striking the child wi th a pa ddle and /or leath er strap. Follow ing her plea of not guilty , the mat ter proce ede d to jury trial. 1
Back g ro und The Stat e’s case on gui lt -i nnoce nce at tri al w as present ed th ro ug h the tes ti mony of W .G. ’s sc hool teac her , a sc hool nurse , a Pampa poli ce off ic er , a forens ici nter v iew er , and the v icti m W .G. The Stat e also in troduce d a w ooden p addl e, a lea ther st ra p and sev eral photog ra phs of W .G. Testi mony

sh ow ed C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es w as noti fied af

ter W .G. ’s teac her

and the s chool nurse saw br uis es on one of W .G. ’s ey es and sc ra tch es on his face one day at sc hool , and note d br uis ing on h is buttock s another day

. Pol ic e w ere not ified

. The Pampa pol ic e off ic er

tes ti fied that he obser

v ed brui ses and other

inju ri es at s ev eral pla ces on W .G. and t hat h e too k t he phot og ra phs admitted i nto e v ide nce. W .G. w as ten b y

the ti me of tr ial

. He tes ti fied hi s t eache r tookh im t o the sc hool nurse becau se the t eache r “k ept o n s eei ng me g ra b my behi nd.” H e di d s o, he sa id, “[ b]ec ause mybehi nd hurt. ” Asked w hy it hurt , W .G. respon ded, “B ecaus e my mom and Kel ly w oul d s pank me.” H e said they spanked hi m w it h a w ooden p addl e and one made 2Here, and a t oth er p laces in the reco rd, the leath er strap w as de scribed as a cinch 3 from a s addl e. The w it ness re lat ed she ask ed W .G. how he k new he w as hitei g hteen ti mes, and 4 he re spond ed, “B ecaus e Kel ly tol d my mom eig hteen ti mes.” W .G. tes ti fied to ot h er puni shment s. H e s aid he w as puni shed by bei ng req uired to tak e a bath in ic e w ater , and on ot her oc cas ion s t o s itw it hout a chai r w it h his back flat ag ain st a w all , w it h hi s l eg s b ent at a nin ety-degree angle and his arms ou t in f ront of h im. Once, w hen he failed to main tain tha t positio n, his feetw ere kicked o ut f rom u nde r him. W

. G

. s o m e t ime s attribut ed th ese act ion s t o “ they ,” w hom he i denti fied as appel lan t and Kel ly

. The tes ti mony

of the tw o w it ness es v ar ied slight ly. T he foren si c i nter v iew er 5 testif ied th at W .G. to ld her ap pellan t and Kelly each gav e him eightee n sw ats an d a third perso n ha d giv en h im sw ats as well. 3 of l eather , and ide nti fied the paddl e and lea ther strap in ev ide nce as “t he th in gs they w hip ped me w it h.” W .G. i ndi cat ed th e s panki ng s w ere di sc ipl ina ry i n nat ure. The tes ti mony

of w it ness es w ho had int er v iew ed W .G. at the t ime of t he i nci dents g enerall y

w as cons is tent w it h hi s t ri al tes ti mony . The sc hool nurse testi fied W .G. tol d her the b ru is es on hi s b uttoc ks resul ted w hen he w as hit“ eig hteen ti mes” w it h “ someth ing from a s addl e” by

appel lan t and “ eig hteen ti mes” w it h the sa me i nst ru ment by Kel ly

. The 3 4 foren sic interv iew er testif ied W

. G . told he r the sam e thin g. Phot ographs clea rly dep ict 5 W .G. ’s br uis es. Ap pel lan t di d nottes ti fy. Ana ly sis Jur y Inst ru cti on Appel lan t present s t hree i ss ues for our co nsi derati on. Vi a her first is sue, sh e cont end s the trial court erred byfailing to instruct the jury thata paren t’s use of force a g a i n s t a c h i l d y o u n g e r t h a n 1 8 y e a rs i s j u s t i fi e d “ w h e n a n d t o t h e d e g re e [ t h e par ent]The Stat e al so cont ends the is sue of ap pel lan t’ s re asona ble bel ief w as not rais ed 6 by the ev ide nce. W e do not a ddress thatco ntent ion

. 4 re asona bly

bel iev es the force is nec ess ar y to dis ci pli ne th e c hil d or to safeg uard or pr omo t e h i s w e l fa re . ” T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 9

. 6 1 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 )

. S u c h j u s t i fi cat ion prov ide s a defense to prosec uti on. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 9.02 (V er non 200 3)

. Appel lan t ac know led g es she nei ther req uest ed s uch an inst ru cti on nor o bje cte d to it s o mis si on, b ut arg ues the fai lure of the tr ial cour t to inc lud e it in the charg e deni ed her a fair trial, and t hus cause d her egregi ous harm und er Al m anza v . St ate, 686 S.W .2d 1 57, 172 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1985) ( op. o n rehear ing ), req uir ing re v ersal

. The Stat e re spond s t hat d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e i s s u e i s g o v e r n e d i n s t e a d b y t h e h o l d i n g o f Posey v . St ate, 966 S.W .2d 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)

. W e ag re e w it h the Sta te. In Posey , t h e Co u rto f

Cr im in a l A p p e a ls h e ld a t ri a l c o u rth a s n o d u t y sua sponte to ins tr ucta j ur

y on u nreq uest ed defensi v e i ss ues even i f the is sues are rais ed by the ev ide nce. Posey, 966 S.W .2d at 61-62. Acc ordin g ly , a tr ial courtdoes not er r by fail ing 6 to i nst ru ct on a defensi v e is sue in the absen ce of a ti mely re q uest or obj ect ion br ing ing the need for the defensi v e inst ru cti on to the atten ti on of the cour t. Posey , 966 S. W .2d a t 62 ; se e B e n nett v. State , 235 S.W .3d 2 41, 2 43 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Ri os v. State , 990 S. W .2 d 3 8 2 , 38 4 (T e x.A p p .–Am a rill o 1 9 9 9 , no pe t. ) (b o th ap p lyin g Posey). Be caus e no charg e er ro r is show n in the absen ce of t he re q uest or obj ect ion , no need ar is es for an A l m a n za anal y si s of t he har m to the defendant. Posey , 968 S.W .2d a t 63- 64. See also Sul li van v. State, No. 04 -0 7- 00214- CR , 200 8 W L 50623 0 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o F eb. 2 7, 2 0 0 8 , n o pe t. h. ) (a p p lyin g P o s ey a n a lysi s t o defense of jus ti ficat ion by defense of5

proper ty ); Ab ra ms v

. St ate, N o . 1 4 - 0 0 - 0 1295- CR , 200 2 W L 58822 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 th Dis t. ] Ja n u a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , p e t. ref ’d ) (a p p lyin g Posey ana ly sis to defense s of justif iable u se of dea dly force in self-defense and in defense o f prope rty ). W e overrule appe llant’s f irst is sue. Ineff ect iv e As si sta nce of C ounse l By ap p e lla n t’ s se cond is sue, sh e c ontends her tr ial co unsel 's fail ure to re q uestan ins tr uct ion bas ed on Penal C ode § 9.61, or o bje ct to it s o mis si on from t he c harg e, cons ti tuted i neffect iv e as si sta nce of c o u nsel , req uir ing rev ersal of her co nv icti on. The Stat e ass erts that the t otal ity of the record reve a ls a ppel lan t recei v ed effectiv e as si sta nce of co u n se l, and that in any ev ent, appel lan t has not met her burden t o ov er come t he presumpt ion her

appoi nted couns el prov ide d her effect iv e as si sta nce. W e ag ain ag re e w it h the Sta te. W e revi ew inef

fective assistance of

coun sel claims un der the tes ts e tforth in Str ickl and v . Washin gton, 466 U .S. 668, 104 S. Ct . 205 2, 80 L.E d.2d 674 ( 1984) and Her nandez v. Sta te, 726 S.W .2d 5 3, 57 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986)

. Und er the firs t par t of the Str ickl and test, an ap pellan t mu st show that cou nsel's p e rforma nce was def icient. " T his re q uires show ing that couns el made er ro rs so ser iou s t hat c ounse l w as not funct ion ing as the 'c ounse l' guaranteed the defendant bythe Si xth A mendment." Str ickl and, 466 U. S. at 68 7. See als o Youn g v . St ate, 991 S.W .2d 835, 837 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999) ( address ing claim cou nsel w as inef

fective for failing to request jury instructio n on justif ication defense ). T h e f irs t p a rtpre su m e s “t h a t c o u n se l is b e tt e r po sit io n e d th a n th e ap p e lla te co u rt to ju d ge6

the pragmat ism of

the pa rticular case, an d tha t c o u n s el ma de a ll si gnifica nt de cisions in the ex ercise of

reason able profession al judgme nt.” Id. (citation s omitt ed). Und er the sec ond par

t of the Str

ickl and tes t, the a ppel lan t mus t sho w th a t t he def icient performa nce prejud iced the defense . "T his requires show ing that cou nsel's errors w ere s o s er iou s a s t o depr iv e the defendant of a fair tr ial , a tr ial w hose re sul t i s reli abl e." Id. In ot her

w o rd s, t h e appell ant “ must show thatthere i s a reason abl e probabi li ty that , but for co unsel ’s unprofessi onal er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing w oul d h a ve been dif feren t.” Id. Rev iew ing a c la im of ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el, a c our t mus t ex amine the tota lity of t he circum stan ces to jud ge both the com pet ency of coun sel and the assista nce act ual ly rend e red. Ex par

te F elton, 815 S.W .2d 733 , 735 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). Al leg ati ons of ineffectiv e as si sta nce w il l be s ust ain ed onl y i f f ir mly founded i n the record. Valdes- Fuer

te v . St ate, 892 S.W .2d 1 03, 110 ( Tex .App. –San A ntoni o 1994, no p et.)

. The burden of prov ing i neffect iv e as si sta nce of c ounse l falls on a ppel lan t and i t mus t be prov ed by a preponderance of t he ev ide nce. Mo or e v . St ate, 694 S.W .2d 5 28, 5 31 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 198 5). In ou r appl ic ati on of the Str ickl and t est, we are caution ed n ot to try to secon d-guess t ri a l c o u n s e l’ s t a c t ic a l d e c i s i o n s t h a td o n o tfa ll b e lo w th e t h re s h o ld o f t h e o bje c t ive sta ndard of reason abl eness . Young, 991 S.W .2d at 837-38

. T he Court of Cri min al App eals has noted thi s i s p ar

ti cul ar ly tr ue w hen t he dec is ion in q uest ion rela tes to the p re sent ati on of a defense. Id. Spec ific all y , t he c our t has note d a c ompetentdefe n se a ttor ney mig ht7

re cog niz e tha t a par

ti cul ar defense mig ht be av a ila b le to a par ti cul ar offense, but mig ht deci de i t w o u ld b e i n a p propr iat e to propound the d efense i n a g iv en c ase. Young, 991 S.W .2d a t 837 ( citi

ng Vas quez

v. Sta te, 830 S.W .2d 948 , 951 , n.3 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 2)). As the S upreme C our

t not ed i n Str

ickl and , “ [ t ] h e re a re c o u n t le s s wa ys t o p ro vid e e f fe c t ive assistan ce in any g iv en ca se.” Str ickl and, 466 U .S. 689.
W hil e fail ure to obj ect to the tr ial cour t’ s jur y charg e is a defaultthatca n amountto ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el, si tuati ons m a y ari se in w hic h c ompetentco unsel may recogniz e the av ailability of a particula r defense but for strategic reason s dete rmi n e it is bestnot to req uestthe ins tr uct ion

. P o s e y, 966 S.W .2d a t 63; Rios, 990 S. W .3d a t 385

. Appel lat e c our

ts w il l not s pecul ate a s t o reason s t ri al couns el uti li z e a p arti cul ar co urse of act ion w hil e re present ing defendants in tr ial ; ins tead, a c ontent ion thata c ourse of acti on or dec is ion made by

co unsel at tr ial co nst it utes i neffect iv e assi sta nce of couns el must be subs tanti ated by

proof in the record. Id. Here, the reco rd is si lent a s to the reason coun sel chose not to objectto the jury ins tr uct ion s o r re q uestan i nst ru cti on w it h reg ard to the jus ti ficat ion pursu ant to Penal Cod e § 9.6 1. The Stat e s ug g est s that, under the c ircums tanc es present ed here, t he as ser ti on of such a j ust ific ati on w oul d ha ve co st appell ant h er credi bil ity

w it h the j ur

y . The Stat e notes appel lan t had made t he de cision to al low the jur y to deter mine puni shmenti n the ev ent o f a g uil ty

v erdict

. I n a n y e v ent, w e find the d eci si on to foreg o req uestfor a n in s t ru c t io n u n d e r

§ 9

. 6 1 in t h is ca s e d o e s n o tfa ll b e lo w th e t h re s h o ld o f t h e o bje c t ive sta ndard of reason abl eness . W e will not sp ecul ate o n tr ial co unsel ’s st ra teg y , ment al8

proces ses , or

reason s for

not re q u e st ing the ins tr uct ion

. See Jack son v. State, 877 S.W .2d 7 68, 7 71 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ; Rios, 990 S.W .2d a t 386

. T o de mo nstrat e he r counse l’s purp orted inef fectiveness, appe llant relies on ly on his failu re to re q ues t th e d efensiv e i nst ru cti on. She do es not a rg ue th at an y othe r actor omis si on of cou nsel co nst it uted an er ro r meeti ng the firs t prong of the Str ickl and tes t. Disagreein g tha t the reco rd shows coun sel’s performa nce was def icient, we ov errule appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Suff icien cy of Evi denceto Suppor

t C onvicti

on By her third issue , app ellantasserts tha t the ev iden ce is legally and factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o es tabl is h tha t s he c ause d the inj ur ies to W .G. I n rev iew ing i ss ues of leg al suf f iciency, an appe llate court v iew s the evidence in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict to de term ine w het her a ration al fact f inde r could ha v e foun d ea ch elem entof the of fense bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Swear ing e n v. St

ate, 101 S.W .3d 8 9, 95 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Con ner

v. Sta te, 67 S.W .3d 192 , 197 (Tex.Cr im

. A p p . 2 001 ) ( citing Jackso n v. Vi rgini a, 443 U. S. 3 07, 3 19, 9 9 S. Ct . 278 1, 61 L.E d.2d 560 ( 1979) ). If , b a se d o n all the ev ide nce, a reason abl y min ded j ur

y must neces sar il y enter tai n a reason abl e doubtof the def end ant ’s g uilt, du e proce ss requires tha t w e reverse and orde r a judgmen t of acquittal. Swear ing en, 101 S. W .3d a t 95 ( citi ng Nar vai z v. Sta te, 840 S.W .2d 4 15, 4 23 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) , cer t. denied, 5 07 U.S. 975 , 113 S .Ct. 142 2, 122 L .Ed .2d 791 (1993 )).9

In pe rfor ming a fact ual suff ic ien cy rev iew , w e v iew

all the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, g iv ing deferen ce to t he fact finder ’s dete rmi nati ons if su ppor ted b y the re cord and may

not order a new tri al si mply

because w e may di sag re e w it h the v erdict. Ma rs hal l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 25 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; W ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Jo h n s o n v . Sta te , 2 3 S.W .3d 1 , 11 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. As an a p p e ll a t e co u rt , we a re n o tju s t if ie d in o rd e ri n g a n e w tr i a l u n l e s s t h e re is so m e o bje c t ive basis in the record demo nstrat ing that the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the evidence cont ra dicts the j ur

y ’s v erdict. Id. As not ed, b y

in dictm ent , the State charged ap pellan t w ith “inten tiona lly or know ingly caus[ ing] bodily injuryto [W

. G

. ] , a c h ild 14 years of age or y oun ger, by

striking the said [W .G.] wi th a pa ddle and /or leath er strap.” Th e elem ent s of this of f e n s e a re co dif ied in Penal C ode § 2 2 .0 4 , w hic h prov ide s i n par t t hat “ a person commi ts an offense i f he in t e n t io n a ll y, kn o win gl y, re c k le s s ly, o r wi t h cr im in a l n e gl ig e n c e , b y a c to r i n t e n t i o n a ll y, know ing ly , reck les sl y

by omi ss ion , c auses to a chi ld

. . . bodi ly i nju ry .” Tex . Pe nal C ode An n . § 2 2

. 0 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

. Th e j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d , i n a c c o rd a n c e w i t h s t a t u t e, t hat “bod ily injury ” mea ns “physical pain, illness, or any imp airme nt of physical cond ition.” See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 1.07( 8) ( Ver non 200 3 & Supp. 2007) ( so defini ng the ter m). Appel lan t ac know le dg es she hitW .G. She focuses her su ff ic ien cy

ch all eng es on th e ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng thatshe caused the brui ses on W .G. to w hic h w it ness es tes ti fied. The Stat e w as not re q uired, how ev er , to show that appel lan t’ s a cti ons caus ed br uis es onApp ellantdoe s notchallen ge the suf f iciency of

the evidence thather action s w ere 7 acc ompani ed by

one of the req uired c ulp abl e mental st ates
. As noted, the forens ici nter v iew er al so tes ti fied th at W .G. i mpli cat ed a thi rd person 8 as w ell. N ei th er

a pp el l an t no r

t he Sta te c ou c he s t he factu al s uffi c i en c y a rg um en t i n te r ms 9 of the req uirements of Penal C ode § 6.04, concer nin g ca usat ion

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 6.0 4 (Ver non 2003). Anal y si s o f the ev ide nce of caus ati on of the bodi ly i nju ry to W .G. under that statut or

y prov is ion w oul d notl ead t o a d ifferent outc ome. See R obbi ns v. State , 717 S.W .2d 348 , 351 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 6) (applying § 6.04 ). 10 her son , butonly tha t, w ith the required m ent al state , she cause d him b odily injury . W .G.’s 7 t e s t im o n y t h a t , a s a re s u lto f t h e d is c ip li n e a d m in is t e re d a th o m e b y h is m o t h e r a n d K e ll y, his “ behi nd” hur

t t o the deg re e he w as “g ra bbi ng ” itat sc hool a lo n e s uff ic es to pe rmi t a ra ti onal j ur

y to conc lud e appell ant’ s acti ons caus ed him phy si cal pai n. V iewed i n the proper li g ht, the e v ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ien t. Swear

ing en, 101 S.W .3d a t 95. Appel lan t’ s a rg ument t he ev ide nce is ins uff ic ien t bec ause tes ti mony sh ow ed th at she was not the only p e rs o n wh o spa nked W .G. is similarly f law ed. She relies on h is sta tements to the s chool nurse and t he foren si c i nter v iew er , i n whi ch he sai d appel lan t sw atte d him e ighteen t ime s and Kelly did the same , causing the b ruises on h is butto cks. 8 App e ll ant a rg ues the j ur y co uld not infer

from s uch tes ti mony

thatappel lan t’ s e ig hteen sw ats ca used the br uis es. Ag ain , the Stat e did not u nder tak e to prov e appel lan t c aused b ru is e s o n W

. G

. , ju s tt h a th e r a c t io n s ca u s e d h im b o d il y in ju ry. 9
Vi ew ing the tes ti mony

i n a n eutral li g ht, w e find the e v ide nce of t hat facti s n eit her so w eak that the j ur

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

unj ust , nor

ag ain st theIn i ts re spons e t o a p p e llant ’s arg ument t hat t he ev ide nce Kel ly and per haps 10 another person dis ci pli ned W .G. re nders the ev ide nce of he r g uil t factu all y i nsuffici ent, the St at e c i tes Go o dman v. Sta te, 66 S.W .3d 283 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 1), in w hich th e Court of Cr imi nal Appea ls rev iew ed a cour t of appeal s’ factual su ff ic ien cy anal y si s i n an inj ur

y to a child case

. Re v ersing the low er court, th e cou rt stated , “All of th e f iv e reaso ns the court of appeal s l is ts appear

to be s impl y

an a lt er nate theor

y of caus ati on or

ex pla nati on of the inj ur ies

. But iti s a j ur

y , nota re viewin g c our t, that acc epts or

reje cts reason abl y

eq ual com pet ing theories of

causa tion. ” Id . at287. W e find the c our t’ s a nal y si s i n Goodm an ins tr uct iv e i n thi s c ase. H ere al so, appe lla n t’ s c ontent ion present s s omethi ng of an alt er nate theor

y of caus ati on of the bodi ly i nju ry to W .G. 11 g re at w eig ht an d preponderance o f t h e ev ide nce. Marshall , 210 S.W .3d a t 625

. 10 Acc ordin g ly , i t is factual ly suff ic ien t. W e thus ov er ru le appel lan t’ s thi rd iss ue and aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.