As t hi s i s a m em or andu m o pi ni on and t he p ar t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi t h t he f act s and al l i ssues o fl aw 1 p re s e n te d b y t h i s c a s e a re w e l l s e ttl e d , w e w i l l n o t re c i te th e fa c ts o r th e l a w h e re e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o a d v i s e th e p a rti e s o f th e C o u rt's d e c i s i o n a n d th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 4. 

### NUM BER 13-05- 0075 6-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 - 

## E D I N B U R G
DIEG O GU ERR ERO , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON 1 

### Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Diego Guerrero ap pea ls his convi ctions o f m urde r (Coun t I) and a gg rav ate d assa ult (C ounts II & I II)

. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 02 ( Ver n on 2003 ); § 22 .02 ( Ver non Su pp. 2007)

. A j ur

y found appel lan t g uil ty

of all three count s a nd furt her found thathe h ad us ed2

a de adly w eap on in ea ch cou nt. The jury assesse d his pun ishm entat imp risonm ent for a ter m of ninety -n ine ye ars on the murde r coun t and a ter m of tw enty y ears o n eac h of the ag g ra v ated ass aul t c ounts

. By hi s s ole i ss ue, a ppel lan t c omplains tha t hi s t ri al couns el
r en de r ed i ne ffec ti v e as s i s ta nc e on fi v e i ns ta nc es
. W e affi r m. I. FA CTUA L BACKGROUND Guer re ro ’s co nv ic ti ons ste m from hi s i nv olv ement i n an alt er cat ion betw een Er nest o Lop ez, a social acquainta nce o f Guerrero, and Ga briel Lerm a. On th e evening of Janu ary 2, 20 05, Ernesto and s e ve ra l frien ds w ere sett ing of f f irew orks in f ront of

Ernesto ’s apar tment, di stu rb ing hi s n eig hbors, El is sa a n d R u d y Vald ez , and thei r y oung ch il dr en. Accordin g to Rud y ’s testim ony, he and Elissa drove the ir children to Elissa’s pare nts’ ho use to g et aw ay

from t he noi se. Lat er

i n the ev eni ng , R udy

drov e back to his apar tment w it h Lerm a, Elissa’s broth er, and Richard Nieto, a f riend. Rudy testif ied th at he ente red his apar tment, but he ex it ed w hen he heard Lerma and Er nest o arg uin g
. Rud y approache d the arguing individuals. W hil e Ler ma and E rn e st o w er e arg uin g , G uer re ro appeared i n Er nest o’ s front door w ay
. Rud y

tes ti f ie d t hat E rn est o ex cl aimed, “ shoothi m,” i n Span is h. Rud y sa w Guer re ro sh oot h is l eft knee, w hic h knoc ked Rud y to the g ro und. After Guer re ro fire d at Rud y , Ler ma ran to w ard R udy ’s ca r. R udy tes ti fied th at G uer re ro fired s hots t o ward the
c a r. He a ls o t e s t if ie d t h a twh il e h e wa s o n t h e gr o u n d , B e n it o L o p e z, E rn e s t o ’s n e p h e w, emerg ed from E rn est o’s apart m e n t with a s hotg un and beg an fir ing at Rud y and in the direct ion of Rud y ’s ca r. Ni eto’ s t est imony

ec hoed Rud y ’s re col lec ti on of t he alt er cat ion and shoot ing

. Ni eto als o tes ti fied th at G uer re ro tr ied sh ooti ng at him but mi ss ed.3

Beni to t est ified that , l ooki ng out from insi de Ernes to’ s apartment, he saw Ler ma and Er nest o arg uin g
. Guer re ro w as on the front por ch and w as the o nly ar med i ndi v idu al at t he
sc ene. Beni to t houg ht t hat L er ma and E rn est o w er e aboutto hav e a fis t fig ht be caus e the y
w er e pumpi ng thei r fists

. Suddenl y , ac cordin g to Beni to, Guer re ro sta rt ed shoot ing at R udy and Ler ma. B eni to feared th a t Rudy and Ler ma, al thoug h unar med, w er e r ushi ng the house

. Beni to t hen ex it ed the house w it h a shot g un and fire d at the g ro und i n frontof the house and tow ards the car

. Beni to t est ified thatby the ti me he g ot ou tsi de bot h R udy and Ler ma w er e al re ady

on t he g ro und. Gue rrero testif ied that he w itnesse d Ernest o, Lerma , and Rudy arguing and tha t all of a sudd en he heard g unsho ts. W hen G uer re ro heard g unsho ts, he ran i nto a ca r and fled th e s cene w it h s ev eral other i ndi v idu als

. W hen police arr iv ed at the scene , Lerm a w as foun d ly ing on th e ground n ear Rudy’s
car
. He did not hav e a p uls e and w as not b re athi ng
. Emerg ency medi cal treatment w as
a d m in ist e re d to no ava il. Of f ice r St a rla W yat t t e st if i e d t h a t n u m e ro u s . 4 5 bu lle t c a sin gs and 20 g aug e shotg un shel ls w er e recov er ed from t he s cene. R ay F er nandez , M .D ., the Nue ces C ounty

M e d ica l Exa m in e r, gave exp e rtm e d ica l te st im o n y. Fe rn a n d e z tes ti fied th at Lerm a died f rom a single g unsh ot to the che st, w hich prod uced entran ce an d exit w oun ds. Due to the n ature of the w ounds , F er nandezco u ld n o t defin it iv ely co ncl ude w hether

the
w ounds w er e c aused by a . 45 c ali ber

bul letor a s hotg un s lug

. II. PROCEDURA L BACKGROUND The ju ry co nv ic ted G uer re ro of one c ount of murder and tw o count s of ag g ra v ated
a s s a u lt

. He re c e ive d a n in e t y-n in e -ye a r p ri s o n se n t e n c e fo r t h e m u rd e r c o n vic t io n a n d two tw ent y -y ear sen ten ces for the a gg rav ate d assa ults. Gue rrero filed a mo tion for new trial,A t th e o u ts e t o fth e h e a r in g , th e S ta t e a r g u e d th a t G u e r r e r o 's m o tio n a n d h is a p p e ll a te c o u n s e l' s 2 affi da vi t w ere c on c l us ory , s el f-se rvi ng , an d fa i l ed t o m ee t t he m i ni m um requ i rem en t s t o a l l ow an evi de nti ary h e a rin g to g o fo rw a rd

. 4 w hic h s tated , i n per

ti nent par

t: That the D efendant i s p ro ceedi ng under R ule 21.3(a) of

the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re i n tha t D efendant’ s r ig hts w er e i nju re d by hi s t ri al couns el’ s fai lure to fully co mmunic ate w it h D e f endant and t o foll ow Defendant ’s i nst ru cti ons as to D efendant’ s t ri al pla n. Guer re ro ’s appel lat e c ounse l av er re d to the moti on th at he had “read t he at tac hed moti on and al l of the facts and all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n s aid moti on are tr ue and cor re ct. ” T he tr ial court con duct ed a h earing o n Gue rrero’s m otion for n ew trial o v er the St ate ’s objectio ns. 2 At t he hear ing , M ar ia Gar ci a, G uer re ro ’s mother , t est ified thatGuer re ro had mental probl ems an d recei v ed suppl emental sec ur it y inc ome in 1998. Cop ies of a benefits l etter and c heck

w er e admit ted as ex hib it s. Nao mi Guer re ro , G uer re ro ’s co usi n, t est ified that , she br i e fl y e n c o u n t e r e d R u d y a ft e r t h e s h o o t i n g a t a n e d u c a t i o n a l c e n t e r , a n d that he state d to her, “I know for a fact th at Diego [Gue rrero] isn’t the on e w ho sh ot m e.” Guerrero
w as the f ina l w it ness at the hear ing

. He tes ti fied that his tr ial co unsel w as ti re d w hen t hey
w ould mee t and w oul d n o t l is t e n to his suggestions of possible w itnesse s. Guerrero suggested t ha t hi s t r i al c ou ns el c al l R eb ec c a St ut ts , a de pu ty s he r i ff, a nd a b al l i s ti cs
ex per t, to t est ify , butthos e s ug g est ion s w er e i g nor ed. The tr ial co urt ov er ru led Guer re ro ’s moti on and thi s a ppeal ens ued. III . D ISC US SION On appeal , Guer re ro arg ues that his tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e for: ( 1) fail ing to subpo ena Naomi Guerrero; (2) f ail ing to subpo ena Rebec ca Stutt s; ( 3) f ail ing to subpo ena
w itnesse s to explain his me nta l and em otion al cond ition; (4) prese nting charact er evi den ce5

w hich sup pose dly ope ned the do or t o Gue rrero’s cr imina l history ; and (5) failing to cond uct an ind epe nde nt investigation of the facts. A . St and ard o f Rev iew In order to prov e an ine ff ect iv e as si sta nce of couns el cl aim, a de fendant mustsh ow that his co unsel 's per

formance fell bel ow

an o bje cti v e s tandard of re asona ble ness and, but for hi s c ounse l' s u nprofessi onal er ro r, there i s a reaso nabl e probabi li ty that the resul t of

the proceed ing s w oul d hav e be e n d if f e re nt. Str

ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 668, 687 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; Vasq uez

v. Sta te , 830 S.W .2d 948 , 949 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92). A reaso nab le prob ability is a “probab ility suf f icient to und ermin e con f iden ce in the outco me .” Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 4. I n rev iew ing co unsel 's per formance, w e l ook to t he to tal it y of the
re pr esent ati on to determi ne the ef fecti v eness of

co unsel , i ndul g ing a s trong presumpt ion that couns el’ s p er

formance falls w it hin the w ide rang e of r eason abl e professi onal
ass is tanc e or

tr ial st ra teg y . Thom

pson v. State , 9 S.W .3d 808 , 813 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99). B. Fai lu re t o Sub po ena Cer ta in Wit ness es I n h is f ir s tt h re e a rg u m e n t s , G u e rr e ro co n t e n d s t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l wa s in e f fe c t ive becau se he di d notsu bpoena cr uci al w it ness es. He arg ues that Nao mi’ s conv ersat ion w it h Rudy, if p resen ted a s t estim ony, would have und ermin ed Rudy’s test imo ny regarding his iden tif ication of

Guerrero as th e sho ote r. Guerrero also argu e s t h a t ca lling Stu tts as a
w it ness to tes ti fy about hi s appearance w oul d hav e i mprov ed hi s c ase becau se Stut ts w as a she riff ’s depu ty and , thu s, a respe cted mem ber of the c o mm unity. Guerrero’s third
w i t n e s s a rg u m e n ti s t h a tt h e r e w a s n o te n o u g h t e s t i m o n y re g a rd i n g h i s m e n t a l s t a t e
. W e disagree w ith all three of Guerrero’s w itness a rg um ent s.6

A c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce of couns el maynot be predi cat ed upon a fail ur e to cal l w it ness es unl ess appel lan t s how s suc h w it ness es w er e av ail abl e and thei r tes ti mony
w oul d benef itthe appel lan t. See K ing v. Sta te , 649 S.W .2d 42, 44 (Tex. Cr im.A pp. 198 3). Addi ti onal ly , proffer ed ev ide nce must be more tha n cu mulat iv e of other ev ide nce at t ri al to rai se the spec tre of

ineff ect iv e assi sta nce. Hol lan d v . St ate , 7 6 1 S

. W

. 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1988) ; Ketchumv. Sta te, 199 S. W .3d 5 81, 5 97 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. re f’d)

. Regarding Nao mi’s testim ony, the St ate argues Guerrero prese nte d several frien dly
w it ness es to t est ify

reg ardin g hi s c haract er and that his tr ial co unsel co uld hav e c oncl uded that another

se lf-s er v ing w it ness w as not w ar ra nted. W e ag re e. Guer re ro ’s tr ial co unsel called, amo ng othe rs: (1) L uisa Garcia, Gue rrero’s m oth er; (2) May Caste llano, Guerrero’s g ir lfri end; (3 ) Laura Perez , a family fri end; (4 ) Cr uzR ey na, a fri end; and ( 5) Tomas R amon, Guer re ro ’s brother

. Addi ti onal ly , G uer re ro took the sta nd and tes ti fied that he w as not t he shoo te r. Guerrero’s fam ily and f riends gave self-serving testim ony abou t Gue rrero’s charact er
. The t ria l couns el coul d hav e reason abl y ca lc ula ted t hat N aomi’ s t est imony
a b o u th e r

c o n v e rs a t i o n w i t h R u d y c o u l d h a v e b e e n t o o s e l f- s e r v i n g , i n l i g h to f t h e o t her t e s t im o n y. T h e a t t o rn e y co u ld h a ve a ls o co n c lu d e d t h a tNa o m i’ s t e s t im o n y wo u ld n o th a ve appeared c re dib le. Gue rrero’s arg um entthatS tutt s’s testimo ny w ould have strengthen ed h is defense becau se she w as a publ icserv ant a nd c re dib le to t he j ur y fail s b ecaus e i t w oul d hav e been
cum ulative testim ony. Under Hol lan d , p ro f

fe re d t e s t im o n y m u s tb e m o re t h a n cu m u la t ive of other tes ti mony

at tr ial

. Hol

lan d , 761 S.W .2d a t 319 . G uer re ro su g g est ed to h is tr ial attor ney thatStu tts g iv e tes ti mony abouthis appearance. C ast ell ano, how ev er , t est ified7

about Guer re ro ’s appearance. The thi rd arg ument, re g ardin g tr ial co unsel’s f a ilure t o presentmental heal th
w it ness es, fail s b ecaus e Gue rrero has not show n tha t t h e re w er e any mental heal th
w it ness es av ail abl e to g iv e tes ti mony thatw oul d benefithi s d efense. At t he hear ing on t he
mo ti o n f o r new

tr ial , G uer re ro di d notpresentany tes ti mony

from ment al heal th professi onal s reg ardin g his condi ti on. Mo re ov er , the proff er ed mental heal th ev ide nce w as Guer re ro ’s mother ’s tes ti mony abouthi s h y peract iv it y as a chi ld and el ig ibi li ty for d is abi li ty pay ments. W e note that at the puni shmentphas e of tr ial Guer re ro ’s mother tes ti fied th at he was hy per, disa bled , and im ma ture. T here fore, Gue rrero’s m oth er’s testim ony w ould have bee n cum ulative, and so the a ttorn ey could have reason ably determ ined thatsuch t e s t im o n y wa s u n n e c e s s a ry. C. Op eni ng t he Do or t o Gu errero ’s C rim in al H ist or y In ad dit ion to his w it ness arg uments , Guer re ro compl ain s t hat h is tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e bec ause he open ed th e door to Guer re ro’s cri minal hi sto ry dur ing the guilt/innoce nce p hase of trial. Guerrero’s prior criminal histo ry w as elicited f rom Pe rez ’s tes ti mony
. On c ro ss -ex aminat ion , t he St ate a sk ed w hy Perezhad come t o tes ti fy for Guer re ro , and she vo lun teered, “W ell , I know Dieg o, and I know

hi m to b e c ompass ion ate and k ind .” The S tate continu ed by as ki ng her

w hat c aused her

to come t o c our

t, Perez sai d, “ To tes ti fy in – on hi s c haract er , on his g ood beh av ior .” The S tate then ask ed i f Perez had ev er kn ow n Gue rrero to li e to the p oli ce about the i denti ty of his fri ends, and Perez
answ er ed th at s he had nev er kn ow n hi m to l ie. On redi re ct ex aminat ion , G uer re ro ’s tr ial co unse l ask ed Perezi f Guer re ro had a

“ me a n s t r e a k

. ” P e r e zt e s t i fi e d t h a ts h e d i d n o tt h i n kG u e r r e ro w a s c a p a b l e o f h u rt ing8

anyone . Conten ding thatGuerrero’s att orne y had ope ned the do or to extraneo us of fense s, the p ro sec utor

then furth er

cross -e x amined Pere zaboutGuer re ro ’s pr ior co nv ic ti ons for theft and burg lar

y of a v ehi cl e. On further redi re ct, Guer re ro ’s att or ney as ked Perezi f she knew “ Di eg o to be c apabl e of shoo ti ng or ki ll ing so meone?” Pe re zrespon ded, “N o, no t t he Di eg o tha t I kn ow .” Gi v en th e s it uati on attr ial , G uer re ro has not show n how hi s t ri al coun sel ’s ac ti ons
w er e unreason abl e. Perezv olu nteered c haract er tes ti mony

on c ro ss -e x aminat ion

. The Stat e pushed the char act er testi mony

env elo pe by

as ki ng Perezi f Guer re ro had ev er l ied to t he pol ic e. The q uest ion s o f Guer re ro ’s tr ial co unsel may hav e been calc u la ted a t pushi ng the env elo pe bac k a nd g etti ng pos it iv e tes ti mony in t h e record, i n l ig ht of the insinua tions m ade bythe St ate in i t s q uest ions to Perez. Gue rrero’s tri al coun sel could hav e s trateg ic allydec ide d tha t t he bene fits of of feri ng g ood c haract er tes ti mony out w eighed th e con sequen ces of adm itting testimo ny regarding non-vi olen t of fense s. D. Trial Counsel ’s Duty to Inv estiga te Guer re ro ’s final arg ument i s t hat h is tr ial co unsel fail ed to co nductan i ndependen t inv est i g a t i o n o f t h e fa c t s
. H e s p e c i fi c a l l y p o i n t s t o t h e fa c t t h a t P e r e z w a s c a l l e d by Gue rrero’s tri al coun sel to test if y but th at th e trial coun sel had n o t m e e t wi t h he r before tr ial

. Guer re ro al so a lle g es that his tr ial co unsel ’s fail ur e to subpo ena t he w it ness es
m e n t i o n e d i n h i s f i r s t t h r e e a rg u m e n t s e v i d e n c e s a n i n a d e q u a t e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
. W e dis ag re e. A c ri minal defense lawy er has a duty

to make an independen t i nv est ig ati on of the facts of a cas e, w hic h i ncl udes seek ing out and inter v iew ing potenti al w it ness es. Ex par te W elbo rn , 785 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tex

. Cr im. App.19 90)

. A breach of the dut y to inv est ig ate9

ma y result in a f inding of

inef fective assistance “w here the resu lt is that an y v iable d ef ense available to the a ccused is not advance d.” Ex parte Ybarra , 6 2 9 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1982)

. In de finin g the duty to inv est ig ate, the U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t has state d tha t “counse l has a du ty to m ake rea sona ble investigations or to m ake a reason able deci si on th at mak e s part ic ula r inv est ig ati ons unnec ess ar y . In an y

i neff ect iv eness ca se,
a particu lar decision n ot to inv estigate m ust be directly assesse d for reason able ness in all the c ircums tanc es, appl y ing a he avy measu re of deferenc e to couns el' s j udg ments. ” Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 69 1. The r ecord show s that Guer re ro ’s tr ial co unsel met h im o n a n umber of occ asi ons and i nformed hi m of the s tatus of his inv est ig ati on and defensi v e s trateg y . Perez ’s so ns
were f rie n d s with G u e rre ro
. S h e t e st if ie d a b o u t Gu e rre ro ’s a p p e a ra n ce , t a st e in clo th in g, and c haract er
. Guer re ro has not show n tha t hi s t ri al couns el’ s i nv est ig ati on w as
unr eason abl e bec ause he has not dev elo ped a re cord of w hat i nformati on hi s t ri al couns el
w oul d h a v e d i s c o v e r e d b y fu rt h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n
. W i t h o u tm o r e e v i d e n c e , w e ca nnot
secon d-guess the trial counse l’s resou rce allocatio n de cisions. IV. CO NC LU SION W e ov er ru le Guer re ro ’s so le is sue and affirm the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment.
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice 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 t he 13t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 08.