NO. 07-07 -012 5-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 C NO VEM BER29, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JON ATHAN BEA RD , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 5-41 0,7 69; HON. BRAD U NDERW OOD, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.

Jonat han Be ard w as conv ic ted o f murder ing hi s w ife Sharon. In cha lle ng ing that
c o n v i c t i o n , h e a rg u e s , v i a fo u r i s s u e s , t h a th e r e c e i v e d i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o unsel and , in tw o issues, thatRules of App ellate Proced ure 21 .4 an d 21 .6 are u ncon stitutio nal. W e aff ir m the jud g ment.2

Issue s 1, 2, 3, and

4 - Ineffe ctive Assistan ce Reg ardin g the firs t four is sues , appel lan t ass erts that his couns el was d e f ic ien t becau se he pur por

tedl y faile d to req uestD NA tes ti ng of a hai r found in the v ic ti m’s mouth
or presentmit ig ati ng ev ide nce dur ing the puni shmentphas e of the tr ial . W e ov er ru le the issues. DN

A T est ing As for the m atte r of

DNA testing, the record discloses tha t app ellantmoved for a new tr ial

. In t hat mot ion , t he to picof tri al coun sel ’s ineff ect iv eness w as broache d, as i t w as at t he hear ing on t he moti on. Mo re ov er , app ell ant ment ione d t h a t the a ll eg ed ine ff ect iv eness coul d ste m from eit her “Tr ial Cou nsel [‘ s]” failu re to “p re se n t[ ] a proper re q u e s tt o t h e T r i a l C o u rtfo r a n e x p e rti n D N Aa n d [ fo r] t h e fu n d s t o a l l o w D N At e s t i n g .” Lik e c oncer n w as ra is ed atthe hear ing as w ell w hen app e lla n t co mmented upo n pr ior
couns el’ s a ll eg edl y

belated r eq uestfor

DNA testi ng of

the hai r in ques ti on; t he moti on w as made pos t- conv ic ti on. Y e t, wh ile t rial co unsel ’s ac ti on w it h reg ard to DN A te sti ng w as obviously an issue t o a p p e ll a n t a t the hea ring, he did not call his attorne y as a w itness. And, therein l ies the probl em w it h appel lan t’ s i neff ect iv e as si sta nce cl aim. Au th or i ty requires u s t o pres um e c ou ns el a c te d i n c on for ma nc e w i th s om e re asona ble tr ial st ra tegy u n le ss the re cord di sc los es other w is e. Gar

za v . St ate, 213 S.W .3d 338 , 348 (Tex. Cr im. App

. 200 7) (sta ting that if the rea sons for coun sel’s cond uct d o n o ta p p e a r i n t h e r e c o rd a n d t h e re i s a tle a s tt h e p o s s ib il it y t h a tt h e co n d u c tco u ld h a ve bee n grounde d in legitimate trial strategy , an ap pel la t e cou rt mustdef er to cou nsel’s d e c is io n ). And, th at trial coun sel’s action s viz D N A t e s t i n g w e r e fo u n d e d o n s u c h a strateg y i s q uit e probabl e. Indeed, i f he had as ked for th e ha ir in q uest ion to be te ste d3

bef ore trial, the n it w as po ssible tha t the test results would have v itiated o ne o f his client’s defenses. An d, t hat d efense enc ompass ed th e i denti ty of the i ndi v idu al w ho appe lla nt
acc used of ki ll ing hi s w ife. In ot her w ords, i f DN A te sti ng prove d t h a t the hai r did not bel ong to the indi v idu al w hom appel lan t ac cus ed, t hen he w oul d notbe a ble to arg ue th at itdi d. So t o o wo u ld hav e the resul ts been on e mor e bi t of ev ide nce ind ic ati ng thatthe suppo sed ass ail ant w as not a t t he murder site but ra ther

in San Antoni o at the t ime of the ki ll ing

. Si mply put, the g ra y

area l eft by

the absen ce of test ing al so left de fense c ounse l
w it h oppor

tuni ty to shade i t i n hi s c li ent’ s fav or . And, w hether thi s a ctu all y

w as tr ial
couns el’ s i ntentcould hav e easil y been re sol v ed at the hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s req uestfor
a new trial. Inste ad, def ense coun sel w as not called to testif y . So g iv e n t h a t def ense coun sel ma y

have been pursuing a legitimate trial strategy , app ellanthas failed to carry his burden of sh ow ing i neff ect iv e as si sta nce. Goods peed v . St ate, 1 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 (T e x. Crim. App

. 200 5) (stating tha t a claim of inef fective assistance mustbe f irmly foun ded in the record)

. Re gar d in g th e m a tt e r of pre se n ti n g mi ti gat in g e vide n ce a t th e p u n ish m e n t h e a rin g, app ellant note s t hato f

h is two siste rs, a b rothe r, two so ns an d a da ughter som eon e surely “h ad s omethi ng g ood t o s ay about

. . . ” him. Yet , aga in, he s ay s n othi ng aboutw hy tr ial
coun sel opt ed to forego calling anyof them as w itnesse s. Nor w as t ri a l c o unse l himself called to explain it at the hea ring on motio n for new trial. T here fore, w e do not kno w if
couns el si mply

fail ed to i nv est ig ate t he av ail abi li ty of any pote nti al miti g ati ng ev ide nce or condu cte d an inv est ig ati on and conc lud ed th at t he ev ide nce d isc o v er ed w oul d notbe fav or abl e. In s hor

t, w e l ack

an a deq uate re cord upon w hic h to asses s whether co unsel4

act ed reason abl y . See A nder son v. State, 193 S. W .3 d 3 4 , 39 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6, pe t. re f’d) ( hol din g thatbec ause the a ppel lan t di d not cal l his tr ial co unsel as a w it ness at the mot ion for n ew tr ial hear ing , ther e w as no record from w hic h to deter mine
w hether co unsel ac ted reason abl y i n notca ll ing any

w it ness es)

. Nor di d appel lan t c it e us to any ev ide nce il lus trati ng th at fav or abl e mi ti g ati ng ev ide nce act ual ly

ex is ted. See B one v

. St ate, 77 S.W .3d 828, 837 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002) (n oti ng that the re cord did not show that other miti g ati ng ev ide nce e xist e d ); Gasto n v. State, 136 S.W .3d 315, 322 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1 Dis t.] 2004, pet. di sm’ d) ( sta ti ng that st
w hether to pr esentw it ness es is l arg ely a mat ter

of tr ial st ra teg y

and that there w as no show ing thathad couns el pursued a di ff er ent s trateg y at the p uni shmenthear ing thatthe result w ou l d ha v e be en d i ffer en t)

. A nd , i t c an no t l og i c al l y b e s ai d th ats i mp l y

beca use appel lan t had sibl ing s and other family m embers they

w oul d hav e s aid g ood t hin g s a bout him. So , w e c annot say thathi s suppo sed failu re to cal l a re lat iv e or si bli ng aff ect ed th e outc ome i n any

w ay much les s in a w ay req uired to sa ti sfya c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce. See B one v

. St ate , 77 S.W .3d at 833 (s tati ng thatthe compl ain ant mus t s how both er ro r and preju dic e)

. Issue s 5 and

6 - C onst

itution ality of Rules of

Proced ure In hi s l asttw o i ss ues, appel lan t c hal len g es the c onst it uti onal it y of Rul es 21.4 and 21.6 of the R ule s o f Appell ate Procedu re . Rul e 21.4 addr ess es the ti me in w hic h to file a moti on for new

tr ial w hil e R ule 21.6 co ncer ns the t ime one has to presen t a moti on for new tr ial to the tr ial co urt. Appel lan t arg ues that as appl ied to him the r ule s a re unc onst it uti onal beca use a comp lete tran script of the tr ia l wa s u n available at th e time the trial court he ldW e n o te th a t a p p e lla n t d o e s n o t t a k e is s u e w ith R u le 2 6 .2 o n a p p e a l. 1 T hough C urry

dea l t wi t h a st at ut e, we see no r eason why i t s hol di ng sh oul d no t app l y t o r ul es of 2 p r o c e d u r e a s w e ll. 5 it s h e a r i n g o n h i s mo t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l

. H e fu rt h e r a s k s t h a t t h e ma t t e r b e abat ed and
re m a n d e d t o t h e t ri a l co u rt s o t h a t h e c a n d e ve lo p t h e gr o u n d s u n d e rl yin g h is in e f fe c t ive assistan ce claim. W e overrule the issue s for several reaso ns. Fi rs t, w e are ci ted to no ev ide nce il lus trati ng that anydel ay i n obt ain ing the appel lat e re cord wa s caused by factors o uts ide hi s c ontrol. An d, i f the record c oul d hav e been
s e c u re d b e fo re t h e h e a ri n g o n h is n e w tr ia l m o t io n b u twa s n o td u e t o h is co n d u c t , t h e n we
w oul d be hard- pr ess ed to ac cepthi s c ontent ion s. Seco nd, n o c omplaint was made bel ow aboutthe pur por

ted u ncons ti tuti onal it y

of Tex as Rul e of Appell a te P ro cedure 21. 4. He si mply menti oned R ule s 2 1.6 a nd 26. 2. 1 Thus c omplai nt ab out R ule 21.4 w as not p re ser v ed. Cur

ry v. Sta te, 910 S. W .2d 4 90, 4 96 (Tex . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a s t a t u t e a s a p p l i e d mu st be raised in th e trial court to pre serv e error). 2 T hird, the Court of

Crimin al App eals has recogniz ed tha t of ten a n ade quate reco rd is not avail a b le f o r an appe ll ant t o proper ly rais e a c lai m of ineffecti v e as si sta nce v ia a mo t i o n fo r

newtr ial

. See Robi

nson v. State, 16 S. W .3d 8 08, 8 10- 811 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 0). Y et, th e aggr ieved nee d notrely on ly o n tha t proce dura l v ehicle. He has available to hi m the av enue of

p o st -c onv ic ti on habe as cor pus. Id. at 81 0. And , hab eas co rpus is th e p r e fe r a b l e me t h o d b y w h i c h t o r a i s e s u c h c l a i ms , a c c o rd i n g t o t h e C o u rt of Cr imi nalT o t he ext ent t hat appel l ant asser t s t hat hab eas r el i efi s i neff ect i v e be cause he woul d no t be ent i t l ed 3 t o appoi nt ed l egal counsel , w e r ef er t he l i t i gant s t o ar t i cl e 1. 051( d) oft he T exas C ode ofC r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. I t accor ds t he t r i al cour t t he a ut hor i t y t o ap poi nt coun sel i n ha beas pr oceedi ngs. 6 Appeal s. So, w e hes it ate t o hol d R ule 21.6 unc onst it uti onal w hen app ell ant t ri es to prosec ute a matte r w hic h i s n ot readi ly su sc epti ble to prosec uti on w it hin

. 3 So t oo does appel lan t hav e anot her means throug h w h ich t o prosec ute t he subs tanc e of hi s c lai m. It appears in the for m of a moti on or peti ti on for DN A te sti ng under chapt er 64 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re . Mo re impor tantl y , t hose mov ing for
re li ef under

that statut e are af

forded appoi nted couns el. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 64. 01(c) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). Fi nal ly , w it h reg ard to the ci rc umstan ces befor e us, appell ant actua ll y did hav e the
means to de v elo p hi s c lai m for i neff ect iv e as si sta nce. Ag ain , t he tr ial courthad a hear ing on th e moti on for new

tr ial , and appel lan t rais ed th e c lai m throug h tha t v ehi cl e. Y et, he failed to have the pu rported ly inef fective attorne y

app ear an d test if

y abo ut m atte rs ele mental to the cl aim. W hy he did not, w e know not. So, g iv en that appel lan t faile d to make eff ect iv e use of

the ti me peri ods acc ompany ing moti ons for new tr ial , w e c annot say that thos e ti me per iod s a re so mehow unc onst it uti onal w hen appl ied to him and und er the ci rc umstan ces of re cord. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.