1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 7 -4 1 8 - CV IN T H E M A T T E R O FL .G .

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

FR O M THE 323RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A p p e l l a n t L .G ., a j u v e n i l e , a p p e a l s h i s d e te rm i n a te s e n te n c e o f fo u r y e a rs af t ert he t r i al courtadj udi cat ed hi m del i nqu ent . I n one po i nt , L. G . ar gues t hat he w as deni ed ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel w hen hi s t ria l c o u nsel advi sed h i m to w a i v e th e re q u i re m e n t o f o b ta i n i n g g ra n d j u rya p p ro v a l o f th e S ta te ’s p e ti ti o n b e fo re a d e te rm i n a te s e n te n c e c o u l d b e i m p o s e d . W e a ffir m .2 ... L .G . w a s a c c u se d o f c o m m i tti n g tw o c o u n ts o f a g g rav a t e d a ss a u l t,

a s e c o n d d e g re e fe l o n y . S eeT EX . P EN ALC ODEA NN . § 2 2 .0 2 (V er non Supp . 2 0 0 8 ). 2

I I . Fa ct ualan d Pr oce duralBac kground The St at e al l ege d t hat L. G . eng age d i n de l i nque ntco nduc tby com m i t t i ng t w o c ount s ofag gr ava t ed as sa u l t w i th a f i r ea r m . The f ac t s unde r l yi ng t he c h a rg e s o f a g g ra v a te d a s s a u l t a re n o t i n d i s p u te . L .G ., w h o w a s fi fte e n y e a rs ol d att he t i m e of t he i nci dent, had a ser i es ofconf r ontat i ons w i t h t he vi ct i m s, R a u l M a t a a n d J o s e C o n c h a s . O n t h e n ig h to fO c t o b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , im m e d ia t e ly f ol l ow i ng a di sput e w i t h t he vi ct i m s, L. G . f i r ed a shot gun sever al t i m es att hem . T h e yw e r e s it t in g in t h e irv e h ic le in lin e a ta d r iv e -t h r o u g h r e s t a u r a n t . L .G . h it b o t h M a t a a n d Co n c h a s i n t h e b a c kwi t h “ b i r d s h o t , ” a n d b o t h v i c t i ms s a w L . G. di sc har ge t he sh ot gun s eve r al t i m es . They w er e r el ea se d t hat ni ght f r om t he hos pi t al w i t houts er i ousi nj ury. L. G . w aspl ac ed i n de t ent i on on O ct obe r22, 2007 . O n O ct obe r 26, t he St at e f i l ed a pet i t i on r ega r di ng a ch i l d e nga ged i n de l i nque ntco nduc t , al l egi ng i n t w o c ount s t hat L. G . “e nga ged i n del i nque nt con duc t i n t hat [ he] vi ol at ed a pen a l l a w o f t h i s s t a t e p u n i s h a b l e b y i mp r i s o n me n t , t o - wi t : S e c t i o n 2 2. 02 of t h e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e .” 2 T h e t r i a l c o u rt h e l d a n a d j u d i c a t i o n h e a r i n g a nd a di sp os i t i on he ar i ng on N ove m ber 14. Pr i ort o t hes e h ea r i ngs , L. G . , hi s att or ney ,3 ... U ndert he det er m i nat e sent enci ng f r am ew or k, t he j uveni l e courtm ay

com m i tt he j uven il e to th e cust ody o ft he T exas Y outh Co m m i ssi on ( “TY C ”) w i t h th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f a l a te r tra n s fe r to p ri s o n . T EX . F AM . C ODEA NN . § 5 4 .0 4 (d )(3 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 and on e ofhi s par ent s si gned a w ai verofgr and j ur y a p p ro v al . Thi s w ai ver al l ow ed t he t r i al courtt o i m pose a det er m i nat e sent ence w i t hou tt he S t at e f i r st s e e k in g g r a n d ju r ya p p r o v a l. 3 A tt he end of t he adj udi cat i ve hear i ng, t he t r i al courtf oun d t hatL. G . had eng age d i n de l i nque nt con duc t as al l ege d byt he St at e’ s pet i t i on ba se d on t he s t ip u la t e d e v id e n c e . L .G . t e s t if ie d a tt h e d is p o s it io n h e a r in g t h a th e h a d o n ly onepr i orco nt ac tw i t h t he j uve ni l e d epa rt m ent , f orw hi ch he r ec ei ved a s up e rvi s ory c a ut i on f ora n “ a c c i de nt /da m a geu n d e r $200”i n Fe br ua r y 2006. Pat syPax t on, ofTar r antCount y Ju ven i l e Servi ce s, w ast he of f i ce rw ho super vi sed L. G . w hi l e he w as i n det ent i on. Paxt on t est i f i ed t hatL. G . w as a g o o d ca n d i d a te fo r pro b a ti o n , th a t h e w o u l d b e ab l e to s u c c e ss fu l l yco m p l e te p r o b a t io n , t h a th e b e h a v e d w e ll in d e t e n t io n , t h a t h e a t t e n d e d s c h o o l re g u la r ly a n d w a s p a s s in g a l l h i s c la s s e s , a n d t h a th e h a d a g o o d a t t it u d e . S h e d id t es t i f y, how eve r , t hatL. G . as so ci at ed w i t h s om e g ang m em ber s butt hathe
w as nota m em berhi m sel f . L. G . ’ s f at h e r te s t i f i ed t hatt hi s w as L. G . ’ s f i r st of f ens e a nd th a t h e w oul d e ns ur e t hatL. G . co m pl i ed w i t h t he t er m s of pr oba t i on.4

L .G . t e s t if ie d t h a tift h e t r ia l c o u rtp la c e d h im o n p r o b a t io n h e w o u ld com pl y w i t h a l l t er m s and co ndi t i ons , abi de by any dr ug t es t i ng pr ogr am , an d st ay aw ay f r om t he vi ct i m s. H e al so t es t i f i ed t hat he had no p r obl em s athom e ors cho ol an d t hatheunde r st ood t he nee d t o c om pl et e h i s edu ca t i on. A tt he co n c l u s i o n oft he evi den ce , L. G . ’ s att or neyr equ es t ed t hatt he c o u rtac c e p t t h e j u v e n i l e d e p a rt m e n t’ s re c o m m e n d a ti o n o f co m m u n ity su pervi si on. The St at e d i d notr ec om m end a di sp os i t i on. The t r i al co urtco m m i t t ed L. G . t o TYC ’s cus t ody f orf ourye ar s, w i t h a pos si bl e tra n s f ert o t he I ns t i t ut i ona l D i vi si on oft he Texa s D epa rt m entof C r i m i nalJus t i ce( “TDC J” ) . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . St andar d ofRev i ew J u v e n ile s a r e e n t it le d t o e f f e c t iv ea s s is t a n c e o fc o u n s e l, a n d s u c h a c la im shoul d be r evi ew ed und ert he Str i ckl and s ta n d a rd . 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 ); I n reR. D. B. , 102 S. W . 3d 798 , 800 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 3, no pet . ) . To es ta b l i s h i nef f ec t i ve as si st a n c e o fco uns el , an ap pel l antm us ts how by a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce : ( 1) t hathi s cou ns e l ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l be l ow t he st and ar d of p rev a i l i n g p rofe ss i o n a l n o rm s; an d ( 2 ) th a t t h e re i s a rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t, b u t f o r c o u n se l ’s d e fi c i e n c y , th e res u l t of th e tr i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. Str i ckl and, 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 ; Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 163 S. W . 3d5

734 , 740 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp . 2 0 0 5 ); Ma l le tt v. S tate , 65 S . W . 3d 59, 62–6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); T h o mp so n v. S tate , 9 S . W . 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Herna n dez v. S tate , 988 S . W . 2d 770, 770 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ). I n e v a l u a ti n g the effe c ti v e n e ss o f co u n se l u n d e r t h e fi rst Str i ckl and pr ong, w e l ook t o t he t ot al i t y oft he r epr esent at i on and t he part i cul arc i r cum st ances o f e a c h c a s e . Thomps on , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 3 . T h e i s s u e i s w h e t h e rc o u n s e l ’s as si st anc e w asr ea so nab l e u nde ral l t he ci r cum st anc esan d pr eva i l i ng 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 t6 8 8

– 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 5 . R e v ie w o fc o u n s e l’s re p r e s e n t a t io n ish ig h ly def er ent i al , and t he r evi ew i ng cou rti ndu l ges a st r ong pre s u m p ti on t hat cou ns el ’ s con duc t fel l w i t hi n a w i de r ang e o fr ea so nab l e r epr es ent at i on. Sal i nas , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 ; Ma l le tt, 65 S . W . 3d a t63. A re v ie w in g c o u rtw ill ra r e lyb e i n a p o s it io n o n d ir e c ta p p e a l t o f a ir ly e v a l u a te th e m e ri ts o f a n i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m . Thomps on , 9 S . W . 3d at 81 3– 14 . “I n t he m aj or i t y ofcases, t he r ecor d on di r ect appeal i s undevel oped a n d c a n n o t a d e q u a te l yre fl e c t t h e m o ti v e sb e h i n d tri a l c o u n s e l ’sa c ti o n s .” Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Ma l le tt, 6 5 S . W . 3 d a t6 3 ) . T o o v e r c o me t he pr es um pt i on ofr ea so nab l e p r of es s i o n a l as si st anc e, “ anyal l ega t i on of i nef f ect i veness m ustbe f i r m l y f oun ded i n t he r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ust6

af 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 . 3 d a t8 1 3 ) . I ti s n o ta p p r o p r i a t e f o ra n a p p e l l a t e c o u rtt o s i mp l yi nf er i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e b a s e d u p o n u n c l e a r p o rti o n s o f th e re c o rd . Mata v. S tate , 2 2 6 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 s a s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’se rro rs w er e so ser i ous t hatt hey dep r i ved t he def endan to f a fa ir t r i al , i . e. , a t r i al
w h o s e re s u l t i s re l i a b l e . S tri ckl a n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . In o th e r w o rds , th e ap p e l l a n t m u st sh o w tha t t h e re i s a rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty t h a t , b u tf o rc o u n s e l’s u n p r o f e s s io n a l e r r o r s , t h e re s u lto ft h e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d i ffe re n t. Id. at 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 8 . A rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty i sa 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., 104 S . C t . at20 68 . The ul t i m at e f ocus o f o u ri nqu i r y m ustbe on t he f und am ent al fa i rn e s s o f th e p ro c e e d i n g w h o s e re s u l t i s b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . Id. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2070 . Ther e i s no r equ i r em ent th atw e a ppr oac h t he t w o- pr onge d i nqui r y of Str i ckl and i n a ny p art i cul aror der , orev en a d d re s s b ot h c om pone nt s oft he i n q u i ryi f th e d e fe n d a n t m a k e s a n i n s u fficie n t s h o w i n g o n o n e c o m p o n e n t. Id. , 104 S . Ct . a t2069 .4 ... W h e n a ju v e n ile c o u rt im p o s e s a n in d e t e r m in a t e s e n t e n c e , itm a yo n ly

com m i tt he chi l d t o t he cus t ody ofTY C , an d T Y C m us tr el ea set he chi l d no l at er t han hi s ni net ee nt h bi rt hda y . T EX. F A M.C ODEA NN.§ 5 4 .0 4 (d )(2 ); T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODEA NN. § 6 1 .0 8 4 (e ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). W h e n th e tri a l c o u rt i m poses an i ndeter m i nat e sent ence f o r a c hi l d w ho com m i t t ed aggr avat ed as sa ul t , t he t er m ofco nf i nem enti n a TY C r es i den t i al f ac i l i t y r ang esf r om t w el ve m o n th sto th e c h i l d ’sn i n e te e n t h b i rth d a y . T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODEA NN. § 61. 084( e ) ; 37 T EX. A DMI N. C ODE § 85. 23( d) ( 3) ( 200 6) ( Tex. Yout h C o m m ’n, Cl a s s i f i c a t i on ) ; 37 T EX. A DMI N. C ODE § 85. 25( d) ( 3) ( 200 5) ( Tex. Yout h Com m ’ n, C l a s s i fi c a ti o n , M i n i m u m L e n g th o f S ta y ).

5 ... A c h i l d w h o re c e i v e s a d e te rm i n a te s e n te n c e i s c o m m i tte d to T Y C ’s c u s to d yi n i ti a l l y . S eeT EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ 5 4 .0 4 (d )(3 ); T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODE A NN.§ 61. 079 ( V er non S u p p . 2008) . Bet w ee n t he chi l d’ s si xt ee nt h a nd n i n e tee n th b i rt h d a y s, at T Y C ’s req u e st th e tr i a l c o u r tm a yh o l d a h e a ri n g to det er m i ne i ft he j uve ni l e s houl d be t r ans f er r ed t o TD C J orr em ai n i n t he cus t ody o f T Y C . T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN. § 5 4 .1 1 (i ); T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODEA NN. § 61 . 07 9( a) . I fa courthas notal r eady t r ansf er r ed t he j uvenile , T Y C m ust t r ans f eran yonei n i t s cus t ody w ho ha s not com pl et ed hi s se nt enc e t o TD C J on hi s ni net eent h bi rt hday, and m ustr el ease anyone i n i t s cu s to dy w ho has c o m p l e te d h i s s e n te n c e . T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODEA NN.§ 6 1 .0 8 4 (b ), (e). 7 IV . A n a ly s is L .G . a r g u e s t h a th e w a s d e n ie d e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e o f c o u n s e l w h e n h is t r ia l c o u n s e l a d v is e d h im t o s ig n t h e w a iv e ro fg r a n d ju r ya p p r o v a l. H e c la im s t hatt he advi ce w as an er r orw hi ch no r easonabl e att or ney w oul d m ake because itd o u b le d h is m in im u m in c a r c e r a t io n t im e a n d e x p o s e d h im t o a p o s s ib le t r ansf ert o t he adul tpr i son syst em . W hen a j uveni l e com m i t s a f el ony, t he j uveni l e courtm ay i m pose ei t her an i ndeter m i nat e sent ence 4ora det er m i nat e sent ence. 5 T EX . F AM . C ODEA NN.Th e f ol l ow i ng st eps m ustusual l y be t aken i n or der f or a court t o i m pose

a d e t e r m in a t e s e n t e n c e : ( 1 ) t h e S t a t e ’s p e t it i o n m u s ta lle g e t h a tt h e ju v e n ile c o m m i tted o n e o f t h e cri m e s e n u m e rate d i n se c ti o n 5 3 .0 4 5 (a); ( 2 ) th e S tate m us tr ef ert he pet i t i o n t o t he gr and j ury; ( 3) t he gr and j ury m us tap pr ovet he pet i t i on bya vot e of at l east ni ne j ur or s; ( 4) t he appr oval by t he gr and j ur y m ust be ce rt i f i ed t o t he cou rt ; and ( 5) t he ce rt i f i ca t i on m us t be ent er ed i n t he r ec or d. T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ § 5 3 .0 4 5 , 5 4 .0 4 (d )(3 ); I n re S. J. , 977 S. W . 2d 147, 149 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 8 , n o p e t.). 8 § 5 4. 04 ( d) ( 2)

– (3 ) . I fa chi l d com m i t t ed aggr avat ed assaul t , underan i ndeter m i nat e sent ence he w oul d spend at l east one year i n a TY C r esi denti al fac i l i ty, b u t T Y C w o u l d h a v e to re le a s e h i m n o l a ter tha n h i s n i n e tee n th b i rth d a y . Id . § 5 4 .0 4 (d )(2 ); T EX. H U M.R ES. C ODEA NN.§ 6 1 . 0 8 4 ( e ) . T h a ts a me chi l d, undera det er m i nat e sent ence, w oul d serve a t w o- t o- tw e n ty - year se nt enc e, i ni t i al l y a ta TY C r es i den t i al f ac i l i t y, w i t h a pos si bl e t r ans f ert o TD C J. T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ 5 4 .0 4 (d )(3 )(B ); T EX. P EN ALC ODEA NN. § 22. 02; 37 T EX. A DMI N. C ODE§ 8 5 .2 5 (c )(2 )(B ). A t r i al courtl acks t he aut hor i t y t o i m pose a det er m i nat e sent ence unl ess th e S tate p res e n ts i ts p e ti ti o n to th e g ran d j u ry, an d the g ran d j u ry a p p rov e s i t. T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN. § § 5 3 .0 4 5 , 5 4 .0 4 (d )(3 ); S. J. , 9 7 7 S .W .2 d a t 1 4 9 ; Inre H. V. R. , 974 S . W . 2d 213, 215 ( Tex. A pp. — San A nt oni o 199 8, no pet . ) . I ft he St at e o bt ai nsgr and j ury app r ova l i n ac cor dan ce w i t h s ec t i on 53. 045 , t hen t he pet i t i on i s dee m ed an i ndi ct m ent , al l ow i ng t he j uve ni l e t o bet r ans f er r ed f r om T Y C to T D C J . S. J. , 9 7 7 S .W .2 d a t 1 4 9 . H o w e v e r , a ju v e n ile m a yw a iv e h is6 ... S e e al soW i l l i a m B . C o n n o l l y , “Sa m eDifferen c e ”– D e term i n a te Sentenci

ng , inS TATEB AROFT EX. J UV.L . S EC. , N UTSANDB OLT SOFJ UVE NIL EL AW , 8 ( A ug. 2005 ) ( st at i ng t hatt he “j uve ni l e a nd c ouns el ca n w a i ve pr es ent at i on a n d g ra n d j u ry a p p r o v a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n ” ) , available at htt p: //w w w . j uve ni l el aw . or g/A rt i cl es / 200 5/ N B/ C onnol l y. pdf ; H on. Je an Boyd, Certif i c a ti o nv. De ter

mi n eSentence , inS TATEB AROFT EX. J UV.L . S EC. , 16 TH A NN UA LJ UV.L AWC ONF. , 6 (F e b . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s t a t in g t h a t“ t h e ju v e n ile m a yw a iv e h is r i ghtt o gr and j ury a ppr ova l s o l ong a s t he f or m al r equ i r em ent s ofFa m i l y c ode 5 1 . 0 9 a r e m e t ” ), avai l a b l e at ht t p: / / w w w . j uven i l e l a w. o r g /Art i c l e s / 2 0 0 3 / Ce rt i f i c a t i o n De t e r mi n a t e S e n t e n ce. p d f. 9 ri g h t to g ra n d j u ry a p p ro v a l i f a l l s ta tu to rya n d c o n s ti tu ti o n a l re q u i re m e n ts a re s a ti s fi e d . I

nreA. R. A. , 898 S. W . 2d 14, 15– 16 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 1995, no w ri t). 6Th e t r i al courtf oun d t hatL. G . com m i t t ed t w o coun t s ofaggr avat ed assaul t , a second degr ee f el ony m aki ng hi m el i gi bl e f ora det er m i nat e sent ence. S eeT EX. F AM . C ODEA NN. § 5 3 .0 4 5 (a )(6 ); T EX. P EN ALC ODEA NN.§ 22. 02. The St at e , fo r rea so nsnotf ound i n t he r ec or d, di d notpr es enti t s pet i t i on t o t he g ran d j u ry fo r a p p rov a l . H o w e v e r, L.G ., h i s tri a l co u n se l , a n d o n e o f his p a ren ts si gne d a w ai ver of gr and j ury app r ova l pr i or t o t he t r i al , gi vi ng t he t r i al co urtt he p o w e rt o i m p o s e a d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e o f f o u r y e a r s i n t h e c u s t o d y o fT YC
w i th a p o s s i b l e tra n s fe r to T D C J . A. R. A. , 89 8 S . W . 2d at15 –1 6. L. G . ar gues t hathi s t r i al c o uns el ’ s adv i cet o s i gn t he w ai verco ns t i t ut ed i nef f ec t i ve10

assi st ance ofcounsel because t he w ai verenabl ed t he t r i al courtt o i m pose a det er m i nat e sent ence w hen t he S t at e onl y sough tan i ndeter m i nat e sent ence. A . V al i di ty oft he W ai ver W i t hi n t he di sc us si on ofhi s i ss ue, L .G . c h a l l eng est he val i di t y oft he
w ai verby as se rt i ng t hathedi d notunde r st and t he co ns equ enc esofw ai vi ng g ran d j u ry a p p rov a l . A j u v e n i l e m a y w a i v e th e req u i rem e n t o f pre se n tati o n to th e g ran d j u ry i f: ( 1) t he w ai veri s m adeby t he chi l d a nd t he att or neyf ort he chi l d; ( 2) t he chi l d a nd t he att or ney w ai vi ng t he r i ght ar e i nf or m ed ofan d u n d e rstan d the ri g h t an d the p o ss i b l e co n se q u e n c e s o f w a i v i n g i t; ( 3) t he w ai veri s vol unt ary; an d (4 ) th e w a i v e r i s m a d e i n w ri ti n g o r i n c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s th a t a re r ec or ded . T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ 5 1 .0 9 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ); A. R. A. , 898 S. W . 2d a t16. L. G . co nce dest hathe , hi s att or ney , an d o n e o f h i s pa r ent s si gne d t he
w a i v e r an d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtac k n o w l e d g e d the si g n e d w a i v e r i n o p e n co u rt . By s i gni ng t he doc um ent , heac kno w l edg ed t hathew as“ i nf or m ed o fan d unde r st [ ood h i s ] ri g htt o ha ve t hi s m att erpr es ent ed t o t he G r and Jury, ” and t hathe“ w ai ve[ d] t he r i ghtto h a v e th e G r and Jury a ppr ovet he Pet i t i on a nd r es pec t f ul l y r equ es t [ ed] and con se nt [ ed] t hatt he t r i al pr oce ed upon t he Pet i t i on11

asf i l ed and t o a cc epta D et er m i nat e Sen t enc e w ai vi ng t he re q ui r em entof G ra n d J u ryA p p ro v a l .” L.G. ar gue s t hatt he w ai verhes i gne d doe s notad equ at el y e xpl ai n t he “i nt r i ca ci esoft he det er m i nat e s ent enc i ng st at ut e. ” Texa s l aw r equ i r est hatt he c h ild a n d a t t o r n e y a r e “ in f o r m e d o f a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h e r ig h t a n d t h e p o s s ib le c o n s e q u e n c e s o f w a i v i n g ” th a t ri g h t. T EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ 5 1 .0 9 (2 ). T h e re is n o s h o w in g in t h e re c o r d t h a tL .G . d id n o tu n d e r s t a n d t h e p o s s ib le c o n s e q u e n c e s o fw a iv in g h is rig h tt o g r a n d ju r ya p p r o v a l. L. G . f urt her ar gue s t hat t he t r i al cou rt ’ s adm oni sh m entatt he beg i nni ng o f th e a d j u d i c a ti o n h e a ri n g d i d n o t e x p a n d h i s k n o w l e d g e . T h e tri a l c o u rt expl ai ned t he r i ght of gr and j ur y appr oval and t he consequ ences ofw ai vi ng t hat r i ght i n t he f ol l ow i ng exch ange: TH E CO U RT: N ow , t he C ourtm ak esnot e t hat you hav e si gne d a nd youratt or neyha s si gne d and al so your par ent s a w ai ver ofgr and ju r ya p p r o v a l? [ A P P E L L A N T : ] Y e s , ma ’ a m. T H E C O U R T : T h e se are se c o n d -de g ree fel o n i e s; i s th a t co rr e c t? [T H E S T A T E :] T h a t’sc o rre c t, Y o u r H o n o r. TH E C O U R T: N ow , [ L. G . ] , w hat t hatm eans i s t he S t at e i n t hi s case has a r i g h t t o t a k e t h i s p e t i t i o n t o t h e g r a n d j u r y a n d s e ekgr and ju r ya p p r o v a l. A n d if t h e g r a n d ju r y g iv e s t h e S t a t e a p p r o v a l in t h is12

case, t hen t he possi bl e sent ence w oul d be i ncr eased w i t h t hi s l aw vi ol at i on i fyou w er e f oun d t o have vi ol at ed t hi s l aw . I t ’ s m y un der st and i ng t hat t he di st r i ctatt or neyha s notgone bef or e t he gr and j ur y t o seek appr oval , butyou and youratt or ney have di scussed t hi s m at t erand you ’ ve each si gned t hi s paper sa yi ng t hatyou w oul d l i ke t o gi ve up your r i ght t o ha ve t he gr and j ur y appr ove you rpet i t i on and t hat , i nst ead, you’ d l i ke t o agr ee t hat t hi s C ourt sh oul d con si deryou rpe t i t i on a s i fi t ’ s bee n a ppr ove d by t h e g r a n d ju r y , w h ic h w o u ld in c r e a s e t h e s e n t e n c in g p o s s ib ilit ie s in t hi s ca se si nce t hi s i s a s ec ond- deg r eef el ony up t o a pos si bi l i t y of a 20

- yearsent ence. D o y o u u n d e rstan d tha t? [ A P P E L L A N T : ] Y e s , ma ’ a m. F r o m t h is e x c h a n g e , L .G . k n e w t h a tt h e S t a t e w a s re q u ir e d t o o b t a in gr and j ur y appr oval of i t s pet i t i on befor e t he courtcoul d i m pose an i ncr eased se n ten c e o f up to tw e n ty y e a rs a n d th a t th e w a i v e r rel i e v e d th e S tate fr o m i ts bur den of obt ai ni ng gr and j ury app r ova l . The t r i al co urti nf or m ed L. G . t hathe f aced a gr eat er sent ence i f t he gr and j ur y appr oved t he pet i t i on or i fhe w ai ved t h a tr e q u i r e me n tt h a n h e wo u l d wi t h o u tt h e g r a n d j u r ya p p r o v a l o rwa i v e r . L . G. i ndi ca t ed t hathean d hi s t r i al co uns el h a d d i s c u s se d t he w ai veran d t hathe u n d e rsto o d the co u rt ’s ad m o n i sh m e n t. W e h ol d t hatL. G . an d hi s att or ney w er e i nf or m ed ofan d und er st ood t he r i ghtofgr and j ury a ppr ova l and t he pos si bl e con se que nce s ofw ai vi ng t hatr i ght bec aus e L . G . an d hi s att or neys i gne d t he w ai vers t at i ng t hatt heyw e re13

i nf or m ed of and unde r st ood t he r i ght ; t he t r i al cou rt cl ea r l y i nf or m ed L. G . i n t he pr esence ofhi s att or ney of hi s r i ght; t he t r i al court i nf or m ed L. G . t hathe f aced a n i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e o f u p t o t we n t y y e a r s i f h e wa i v e d t h i s r i g h t ; a n d L . G. to l d th e tri a l c o u rt th a t h e u n d e rs to o d th e a d m o n i s h m e n t. S ee I n re B. J. , 960 S. W . 2d 216, 220 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 1997, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hatt he court ’ s adm oni shm ent w as i nef f ect i ve and t hat t he j uveni l e’ s pl ea oft r ue w as i nva l i d w hen t he cou rt ’ s adm oni sh m entf ai l ed t o i nf or m t he j u v eni l e t hat , by p l e a d i n g tru e , h e fa c e d a s e n te n c e o f u p to fo rtyy e a rs ); InreR.W. , 694 S .W .2 d 5 7 8 , 5 7 9 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h r is ti1 9 8 5 , n o w ri t) ( h o l d i n g tha t a j uveni l e know i ngl y, i nt el l i gentl y, and vol untar i l y w ai ved hi s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al
w hen he and hi s att or ney si gned a w r i t t en w ai ver ; t he t r i al courtadm oni shed t he j uveni l e i n t he pr esence ofhi s att or ney t hatby si gni ng t he w ai ver , he w as g iv in g u p t h e r ig h t t o h a v e a ju r yd e c id e h is c a s e ; a n d t h eju v e n ile a f f ir m a t iv e ly acknow l edged t hat he und er st ood and desi r ed t o w ai ve t hatr i ght) . Ther ef or e, w e h o l d th a t L .G . e ffe c ti v e l yw a i v e d h i s ri g h t to g ra n d j u rya p p ro v a l . S eeT EX. F AM . C ODEA NN.§ 51 . 09. B. I neff ect i ve A ssi st ance ofC oun sel L. G . al so ar gues t hathe w as deni ed ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel w hen h i s tr i a l co u n se l ad v i se d h i m to s i g n the w a i v e r of g ran d j u ry a p p rov a l p ri o r t o14

t he adj udi ca t i on he ar i ng be ca us e i t doubl ed hi s m i ni m um t i m e o fi nca r ce r at i on and exp osed hi m t o a pot ent i al t r ansf ert o t he adul tpr i son syst em . In o rd e r to p ro v e th e fi rs t p ro n g , L .G . m u s t s h o w th a t h i s tri a l c o u n s e l ’s re p re s e n ta ti o n fe l l b e l o w th e s ta n d a rd o f p re v a i l i n g p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s . S ee Str i ckl and, 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 ; Sal i nas , 163 S. W . 3d a t740. A s t r ong p r es um pt i on o f re a so nab l e p r of es si ona l as si st anc e e xi st s, an d “ any al l e g a ti 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 ec or d, an d 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. ” Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at 814 . I nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el cl ai m s ar e r ar el y s ucc es sf ul o n d i re c t a p p e a l b e c a u s e o f th e u n d e v e l o p e d re c o rd . Id. a t813– 14. W hen an app el l antr ai ses an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel cl ai m based on er r on e o u s a d v i c e f r o m h i s c o u n s e l , h e mu s ts h o w t h a th i s d e c i s i o n was b a s e d o n h is a t t o r n e y ’s a d v ic e a n d t h a t , b u t f o rh is a t t o r n e y ’s a d v ic e , h e w o u ld h a v e m a d e a d i ffe re n t d e c i s i o n . S tate v. Recer, 815 S. W . 2d 730, 731– 32 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1991 ) . The r ec or d doe s not sh ow w het her L. G . w ai ved gr and ju r ya p p r o v a l b e c a u s e o fc o u n s e l’s a d v ic e , o rw h e t h e rh e w a iv e d ita g a in s th is cou ns el ’ s adv i ce . Ther ef or e, w e c onc l udet hat L .G .’s tr i al co uns el di d not p r o v id e in e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e b y a d v is in g L .G . t o w a iv e g r a n d ju r ya p p r o v a l. See i d. at732 ( dec l i ni ng t o f i nd t hatco uns el ’ s adv i cew asi nef f ec t i ve assi st ance ofcounsel w hen t he r ecor d di d not r ef l ectw het herappel l antw ai ved15

a j u ry tri a l s o l e l yb e c a u s e o f c o u n s e l ’sa d v i c e ); F l a n aga nv. S tate , 675 S. W . 2d 734 , 74 7 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 1984 ) ( dec l i ni ng t o f i nd i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o f coun sel based on cou nsel ’ s advi ce because “[ a] l t hou gh t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat appel l antw ai ved hi s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al , nothi ng i n t he r ecor d r ef l ect s w het her th i s w a i v e r w a s m a d e o n c o u n s e l ’ss u g g e s ti o n o r a t a p p e l l a n t’si n s i s te n c e ” ). M or eov er , ev en i fw e a ss um e t hatL. G . w ai ved hi s r i ght so l el y ba se d on hi s cou ns el ’ s adv i ce , t he r ec or d doe s notr ef l ec t , nor doe s L. G . al l ege , t hathe
w asm i si nf or m ed oft he con se que nce s ofw ai vi ng hi s r i ghtt o t he gr and j ury. T h e t r i a l c o u rtc l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t wa i v i n g g r a n d j u r ya p p r o v a l e x p o s e d L . G. t o an i ncr ea se d s ent enc e, an d L . G . s t at ed t hatheunde r st ood h i s r i ghtan d t he con se que nce s ofw ai vi ng i t . W hi l e L . G . al l ege s t hathi s cou ns el t ookno a ct i on t o e ns ur e t hat L .G . unde r st ood t he con se que nce s oft he w ai ver , t her e i s no evi den cei n t he r ec or d t hat cou ns el di d not so i nf or m hi m . I n f ac t , L. G . di d not di sagr ee w hen t he t r i al courtst at ed, “[ Y ] ou and yo uratt or ney have d i scussed t hi s m att er . ” Ther ef or e, be ca us e t he t r i al co urtco r r ec t l y i nf or m ed L. G . oft he consequ ences oft he w ai ver , because L. G . i ndi cat ed t hathi s counsel had di scussed t he w ai verw i t h hi m , and because nothi ng i n t he r ecor d show s t hat coun sel m i si nf or m ed L. G . oft he c o nsequen ces oft he w ai ver , w e cannot say th a t h e w a s d e n i e d e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l . S ee Ri p lo wski v. S tate , 61 S. W . 3d 378, 391 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2001 ) ( hol di ng t hat cou ns el ’ s adv i cei s not16

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel w hen “[ a] ppel l ant r ecei ved exact l y w hat c o u n s e l to l d h i m h e w o u l d g e t” ), cert. denied, 5 3 9 U .S . 9 1 6 (2 0 0 3 ); Th acker
v. S tate , 9 9 9 S .W .2 d 5 6 , 6 9 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 1 9 9 9 , p e t. r ef ’d ) (h o l d i ng t hatt r i al co uns el ’ s adv i cet o w ai ve a r i ghti s noti nef f ec t i ve assi st ance of coun sel w hen t he appel l ant pr esent s no evi dence t hatt he w ai ver i s i nvol untary ort hat t he t r i al coun sel di d not advi se hi m oft he consequ ences o f th e w a i v e r). Thi s ca sede m ons t r at est he di f f i cul t i esi nhe r enti n e val uat i ng i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e c l ai m s on di r ec tap pea l be ca us e t he r ec or d doe s n o t s h o w t he c ir c u m s t a n c e s o rre a s o n s b e h in d t h e w a iv e r , n o rd o e s it“ a f f ir m a t iv e ly dem onst r at e t he al l eged i nef f ect i veness. ” See Tho mps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t814. T h e re fo re L .G . c a n n o t p re s e n t e v i d e n c e th a t h i s tri a l c o u n s e l ’sa c ti o n s w e re d e fi c i e n t to d e fe a t th e p re s u m p ti o n o f re a s o n a b l e p ro fe s s i o n a l a s s i s ta n c e . S ee id . Becau se not hi ng i n t he r ecor d show s t hatL. G . ’ s t r i al counsel ’ s conduct
w as unr easonabl e orf el l bel ow t he st andar d ofpr evai l i ng pr of essi onal nor m s, w e o v e rru l e L .G .’s s o l e p o i n t. See Str i ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at 69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at 2052.17 V . Concl us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed L. G . ’ s sol e poi nt , w e af f i r m t he j udg m en t o f th e t r i al c o u rt . P E R CU 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. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t28, 2008