### NO . I N THE COUR

T O FCRIMINA

L APPEAL S RONALD ROBINSO N PETITIONER VS . 

### TH E STAT E O F TEXA

S RESPONDEN T O n appea l fro mcaus e numbe r 01-14-00656-CRi n th e Firs t Cour t o f Appeal s an dcaus e numbe r 103616 5 i n th e 209t

h Distric t Court o f Harri s County , Texa s PETITION FO RDISCRETIONAR Y REVIEW

KE N GOOD E P.O.Bo x 59094 7 Houston , Texa s 7725 9 (409 ) 779-363 1 Stat e Bar #0814320 0 Goodedkc@msn.co m PD-0757-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 6/22/2015 9:50:41 AM Accepted 6/24/2015 9:50:14 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKIDENTIFICATIO N O F TH E PARTIE S

Ronal d Robinso n Petitione r TDCJ-I D Huntsville , Texa s Charle s Medli n Defens e Attorne y Houston , Texa s Lanc e Lon g Tria l Prosecuto r Houston , Texa s Hon . Mik e Wilkinso n Tria l Judg e Houston , Texa s Ke n Good e Appellat e Attorne y Housto n Texa s Devo n Anderso n Appellat e D.A . Houston , Texa sT O TH E HONORABL E COUR T O F CRIMINA L APPEALS :

Come s No w Ronal d Robinson , petitioner , an d file s thi s petitio n fo r discretionar y revie w an d i n suppor t show s a s follows : STATEMEN T O F TH E CAS E Petitione rwa s charge d b y indictmen t wit h th e offens e o f capita l murder . Petitione rpleade d no t guilty , an d proceede d t o jur y trial . Punishmen t wa s se t a t lif e i n priso n afte rth e jury foun d petitione rguilt y a s charged , STATEMEN T O F PROCEDURA L HISTOR Y I n a n unpublishe d opinio n date d Jun e 18 , 201 5 th e Firs t Cour t o f Appeal s affirme d th e convictio n an d sentence . N o motio n fo rrehearin g wa s filed .TABL E O F CONTENT S

Statemen t o f th e Case . 1 Statemen t o f Procedura l Histor y 1 Groun d fo rRevie w

WHETHE R TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S ERRE D B Y NO T EXAMININ G TH E ABSENC E O F A N ACCOMPLIC E WITNES S INSTRUCTIO N UNDE R

THI S COURT' S DECISIO N I N ZAMOR A V . STAT E WHETHE R TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S ERRE D B Y HOLDIN G THA T PETITIONE R WA S NO T PREJUDICE D B Y DEFENS E COUNSE L ELICITIN G TESTIMON Y THA T TH E CO-DEFENDAN T HI T MA N ALLEGEDL Y HIRE D B Y PETITIONE R HA D BEE N FOUN D GUILT Y

O F MURDE R FO R HIRE . Argumen t 2 Praye rfo rRelie f 4 Certificat e o f Wor d Coun t Complianc e 5 Certificat e o f Servic e £INDE X O F AUTHORITIE S

CASE S ExPart e Hill , 86 3 S.W.2 d 48 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 1993) . Zamor a v . State , 41 1 S.W.3 d 50 4 (Tex . Crim . App . 2013) .GROUND S FO R REVIE W

WHETHE R TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S ERRE D B Y NO T EXAMININ G TH E ABSENC E O F A N ACCOMPLIC E WITNES S INSTRUCTIO N UNDE R THI S COURT' S DECISIO N I N ZAMOR A V . STATE . WHETHE R TH E COUR T O F APPEAL S ERRE D B Y HOLDIN G THAT PETITIONE R WA S NO T PREJUDICE D B Y DEFENS E COUNSE L ELICITIN G TESTIMON Y THA T TH E CO-DEFENDAN T HITMA N ALLEGEDL Y HIRE D B Y PETITIONE R HA D BEE N FOUN D GUILT Y O F MURDE R FO R HIRE . ARGUMEN T t . O n appea l petitione rargue d tha t th e tria l cour t erre d b y no t submittin g a n accomplic e witnes s instructio n a s regard s th e testimon y o f Gre g Fuente s unde r thi s court' s recen t decisio n i n Zamor a v . State , 41 1 S.W.B d 50 4 (Tex , Crim . App . 2013) . Petitione rasserte d tha t th e tria l cour t ha d a su a spont e dut y t o giv e a n accomplic e witnes s instructio n becaus e th e evidenc e raise d th e issu e unde rth e theor y tha t Fuente s wa s a part y a s a co-conspirator . Petitione rcite d th e Zamor a case , an d pointe d t o th e followin g evidenc e adduce d a t trial : (1 ) Fuente s wa s friend s wit h th e hi t ma n (Mason) ; (2 ) Fuente s wa s th e leade ro f a gan g an d committe d crimina l act s wit h Mason ; (3 ) Fuente sdrov e Maso n t o a meetin g wit h petitione rwher e Maso n tol d petitione rtha t th e

targe t wa s dead ; (4 ) Fuente s observe d petitione rpa y of f Maso n fo rth e contrac t hit ; (5 ) Fuente s an d Maso n bot h wer e arme d wit h firearms ; (6 ) Fuente s helpe d Maso n fle e th e countr y afte rth e murder ; (7 ) Fuente s gav e Maso n lodgin g i n hi s residenc e whe n Maso n returne d fro m hi s fligh t t o anothe rcountry ; (8 ) Fuente s admitte d tha t Maso n an d anothe rma n cam e t o hi s residenc e wit h sk i masks , gloves , an d gun s afte rth e murder ; (9 ) Fuente s helpe d Maso n dispos e o f th e murde rweapon ; an d (10 ) Fuente s an d Maso n travele d togethe rt o commi t anothe rmurde rtogether . Incredibly , th e lowe rcour t hel d tha t n o questio n ha d bee n raise d tha t Fuente s ha d committe d a n affirmativ e ac t promotin g th e murde rfo rhire . Moreover , th e lowe rcour t di d no t mentio n o raddres s th e evidenc e unde r Zamora . Th e towe rcourt' s opinio n i s a t odd s wit h preceden t fro m thi s court , thu s warrantin g review . 

### II . O n appea l petitione rals o contende d tha t defens e counse l ha d rendere d ineffectiv e assistanc e whic h prejudice d hi m b y elicitin g testimon y tha t Mason , th ehi t man , ha d bee n convicte d o f murderin g th e complainan t pursuan t t o a contrac t

wit h petitioner . Th e lowe rcour t hel d tha t petitione rwa s no t prejudice d b y suc h evidence . Th e lowe rcour t distinguishe d thi s cas e fro m E x Part e Hill , 86 3 S.W.2 d 48 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 1993) , i n whic h thi s cour t hel d tha t a defendant' s righ t t o a fai rtria l wa s prejudice d b y defens e counse l openin g th e doo rt o evidenc e tha t a co defendan t ha s bee n convicte d o f th e sam e offense . Petitione rassert s tha t th e lowe rcourt erre d i n it s analysi s an d failur e t o follo w preceden t o f thi s court , thu s warrantin g review .

PRAYE R FO R RELIE F WHEREFORE , petitione rpray s tha t hi s ground s fo rrevie w b e granted . Respectfull ysubmitted , /S / KENGOOD E P.O.Bo x59094 7 Houston , Texa s 7725 9 (409 ) 779-3631 ; SB N 0814320 0 6oodedkc(5 ) msn.co mCERTIFICAT E O F WOR D COUN T COMPLIANC E

Relyin g o n th e wor d coun t functio n i n th e wor d processin g softwar e use d t o produc e thi s documen t 1 certify tha t th e numbe ro f word s use d i n thi s petitio n fo r discretionar

y revie w i s 700 . /S/ KENGOOD E

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I certify tha t a tru e an d correct cop y o f th e foregoin g wa s delivere d t o th e Stat e an d th e Stat e Prosecutin g Attorne y thi s 22n d da y o f Jun e 201 5 b y firs t clas s mail .

KE N GOOD E

### Opinio n issue d Jun e 18 , 201 5



### I n Th e 

## Cour tof Fo rTh e 

## Jftat 3!t*trir

t o f Cexa * NO . 01-14-00656-C R RONAL D ROBINSON , Appellan t



### V . TH E STAT E O F TEXAS , Appelle e O n Appea l fro m th e 209t h Distric tCourt Harri s County , Texas Trial CourtCaus e No . 103616 5

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N A jur y foun dRonal dRobinso n guilt y o f th e offens e o f

capita l murder . Becaus e th e State di dno t seek th e deat

h penalty , th e trial court assesse d Robinson' s punishmen t

a t lif e imprisonment . O n appeal , Robinso n contend s that(1 ) th e tria l court erre db y no t

givin g th e jur y an accomplice-witnes s instructio n i n referenc e t o certai n witnes s testimony ; an d(2 ) h e wa s deprive do f constitutionall y effectiv e assistanc e o f

counsel . W e conclud e that th e tria l cour t di dno t er r whe n i t di dno t giv e th e accomplice-witnes s instructio n wit h respec t t o th e witnes s that Robinso n contend s wa s an accomplic e witness . W e furthe r conclud e that Robinso n ha s faile dt o demonstrat e that ineffectiv e representatio n affecte dth e outcom e o f

th e trial . W e therefor e affirm .

Backgroun d Thi s cas e arise s fro macol dcas e murde r that occurre di n th e earl y 1990s . The decedent , Jimm

y Sims , worke dnight s a s amachinist , an dhe coache dboy s i n aboxin g club i n hi s spar e time . A t

some poin t

durin g th e 1980s , Sim s me t Robinson' s wife , Flor , throug h coachin g her son , Ronnie . Thoug h both were married , Sim s an dFlo r

bega n an affai r

that laste dsevera

l years . I n th e late 1980s , Robinso n an dSims' s wife , Jeneanne , discovere dth e affair . Afte r Jeneann e confronte dhe r

husban dabou t

th e affair , h e ende dit . Th e coupl e decide dt o sta y together an dwork

o n thei r marriage . Robinson , however , reacte dbadl y whe n h e foun dou t abou t hi s wife' s affai r wit h Jimm y Sims . Over

th e nex t yea r an dahalf

, h e threatene dan dstalke dbot h o f th e Simses . H e mad e belligeren t phon e call s t o th e Simses ' residence . Durin g on e o f thes e calls , Sims an dJeneann e overhear dRobinso n assaultin g Flo r i n thebackground . Robinso n als o wrot e provocativ e letters , signe dthe mwit h Flor' s name , an dsent

the mt o th e Simses . O n severa l occasions , Jeneann e observe d Robinso n sittin g i n hi s van outsid e o f th e Simses ' residenc e aroun dth e tim e that Sim s woul dleav e fo r

work . I n earl y 1991 , Robinso n hi dinsid e th e Simses ' garag e an dconfronte d Jeneanne . Durin g thi s episode , Robinson' s so n Ronni e an dRonnie' s friend s stoo d outsid e near'Robinson' s van . Robinso n tol dJeneann e tha t h e ha dbrough t

Ronni e an dhi s friend s t

o "settle thi s onc e an dfor all. " O n anothe

r occasio n in early 1991 , Robinso n wen t

t o th e Simses ' hous e an dreporte dtha t Ronni e ha dtrie dt o steal hi s gu n becaus e h e wante dto "tak e car e o f Mr . Sims. " A fe w month s before Sims' s murder , Robinso n drov e b y th e Sims' s residence , brandishin g agun . O n Septembe

r 5 , 1991 , a

t approximatel y 10:00p.m. , Sim s lef t hi s hous e fo r work . Shortl y afte r

h e left , Jeneann e heardgunshots . Sh e grabbe dapisto l an dran outside . Jeneann e saw tw o individual s shootin g a t Sim s an dsh e realize dthat h e ha dbee n shot . Th e individual s wor e kni t cap s wit

h thei r face s covere db y bandanas . Sh e screame da t the mto leave , an dthe y pointe dthei r gun s a t her . They eventuall y fle dwestwar ddow n th e street . Sim s die dfro mhi s injuries . Th e polic e investigate dSims' s murde r withou t immediate success . J . Martine z testifie dat

trial , an dth e jur y wa s instructe dt o regar dhi s testimon y a s accomplice-witnes s testimony . H e testifie dthat h e wa s clos e friend swit

h Ronni e an danothe r

man , Bo b Mason . Martine z drov e Maso n t o mee t wit h Robinson . Robinso n wante dMaso n t o hurt someon e wh o wa s havin g an affai r wit h M s wife . Maso n an danother friend , J . Salodiur , aske dMartine z t o driv e the m t o Sims' s hous e at

th e tim e tha t

Sim s woul db e leavin g fo r work . H e agree dan d drov e the mt o apark

nea r Sims' s hous e s o that

n o on e coul didentif

y th e getawa y car . Jonu e Salodiur , wh o accompanie dthem , carrie dalon g stic k wit h him . Maso n an dSalodiur

heade dtowar dth e Simses ' residence . Martine z hear dseveral gunshot s afe w minute s later . Salodiur an dMaso n returne dt o th e car ; Maso n wa s holdin g agun . Gre g Fuente s als o testified . H e kne w Mason , Martinez , an dSalodiur . Aroun dth e time o f

th e murder , Maso n an danothe r man went

t o Fuentes' s hous e wit h sk i mask s an dgloves . They announce dthat the y ha dsho t

someone . Fuente s refuse dt o kee p th e mask s an dgloves . Maso n als o aske dfo r help i n gettin g ri do f

a gun . Fuente s the n drov e Maso n t o Robinson' s house . I n Fuentes' s presence , Maso n tol dRobinson : " I too k care o f you r problem . He' s dead. " Robinso n calle d t o on e o f hi s childre n t o brin g hi mhi s wallet , an dRobinso n gav e Maso n som e money . K . Martine z date dMaso n i n th e earl y 1990s . A coupl e o f day s afte r

Sims' s murder , Maso n tol dhe r that h e ha dsho t

someone , an dSalodiur wa s wit h hi m whe n i t happened . Maso n tol dhe r that Robinso n ha dpai dMaso n t o kil l Sim sbecaus e Sim s ha dha dan affai r wit h hi s wife . Maso n als o pointe dagu n at a woman wh o wa s screamin g at th e scen e o f

th e crime . H . Cook , wh o live dnea r Sims' s house , testifie dtha t h e wa s outsid e hi s hous e at approximatel y 10:0 0 o n th e night o f Sims' s murde r

whe n h e hear da woman screaming . H e the n observe damal e runnin g an dwalkin g intermittently , travelin g westward , an dlookin g ove r hi s shoulder , a s h e carrie dalon g rube . H e als o observe danother

mal e followin g th e firs t on e an dcarryin g somethin g unde r hi s jacke t I . Guerra , Robinson' s co-worker , discusse dSims' s murde r wit h Robinso n i n 2004 . Robinso n tol dhi mthat on e o f hi s son' s friend s ha dmurdere dSims . I n 2005 , th e polic e departmen t began t o wor

k o n th e col dcas e fil e again . The renewe dinvestigatio n le dt o Robinson' s indictment . Course of proceedings A jur y convicte dRobinso n o f capital murde r

i n 2007 . Robinson v . State, 26 6 S.W.S d8 , 9 (Tex . App.—Housto n [1st Dist ] 2008 , pe t

re f d) . Robinso n appealed , contendin g that th e trial cour

t erre di n settin g fort h th e applicabl e law i n th e jur y charge . Id

. Ou r cour t agreed , an dw e reverse dan dremande dth e cas e fo r ane w trial . Id. Th e Court o f Crimina l Appeal s refuse dapetitio n fo r discretionary review . Se e Orde r

refusin g State' s PDR , Cas e No . PD-1384-0 8 (Feb . 25 , 2009) .

### O n remand , th e Stat e agai n trie dRobinso n fo r capital murder . Th e jur y foun d Robinso n guilty . Discussio n I . Accomplice-Witnes s Instructio n Standard of Review W e revie w jur y charg e erro r i n atwo-step process . Ng o v . State, 17 5 S.W.S d 738 , 74 4 (Tex . Crim . App . 2005) . First , w e determin e whether erro r exist s i n th e charge . Id. I f

i t does , w e revie w th e recor dt o determin e whether th e erro r cause d sufficien t harmt o requir e reversal o f th e conviction . Id. Whe n th e defendan t ha s no t objectedt o th e error , w e wil l no t revers e fo r

jury-charg e erro r

unles s th e recor d demonstrate s egregiou s harmt o th e defendant . Id. at 743-44 . Accomplice testimony Under Articl e 38.1 4 o f

th e Texa s Cod e o f

Crimina l Procedure , " A convictio n canno t

b e ha dupo n th e testimon y o f an accomplic e unles s corroborate d b y othe r evidenc e tendin g t o connec t th e defendan t

wit h th e offens e committed ; an dth e corroboratio n i s no t sufficien t

i f i t merel y show s th e commissio n o f th e offense. " TEX . COD E CRIM . PROC . ANN . art , 38.1 4 (Wes t 2013) . A n accomplic e i s aperso n wh o participate s i n th e offens e before , during , o r afte r it s commission , wit h th e requisit e mental state . Druery v . State, 22 5 S.W.3 d491 , 49 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 2007) .A n accomplic e witnes s may b e characterize da s an accomplic e a s amatte r o f la w o r a s amatte r

o f fact . Smith v . State, 33 2 S.W.3 d425, 43 9 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011) . A tria

l judg e ha s n o duty t o instruc t ajur y tha

t awitnes s i s an accomplic e a s amatte r

o f law unles s n o doub t

exist s tha t

th e witnes s i s an accomplice . Drueiy, 22 5 S.W.3 da

t 498 . I f th e evidenc e presente di s conflictin g o n th e issu e o f whether awitnes s i s an accomplice , the n th e tria l judg e shoul dsubmi t

whether th e witnes s i s an accomplic e witnes s a s amatte r o f fac t t o th e jury , definin g an accomplic e an dinstructin g th e jur y tha t i t mus t firs t fin dcorroboratin g evidenc e befor e i t consider s th e testimon y o f awitnes s i t

find s t o b e an accomplice . Id. at 498-99 . T o rais e afac t

issu e an dwarran t

an accomplice-witnes s instruction , som e evidenc e mus t

sho w an affirmativ e ac t o n th e par t

o f th e witnes s t o assis t

i n th e commissio n o f

th e charge doffense . Id

. a t 499 , Analysis Robinso n argue s tha

t Fuente s wa s an accomplic e t o capita l murde r an dthu s th e trial cour

t erre di n refusin g t o instruc t th e jur y t o appropriatel y consider corroboratin g evidenc e befor e relyin g o n Fuente' s testimony . W e disagree , becaus e Robinso n ha s no t show n tha

t Fuente s committe da

n affirmativ e ac t

i n furtheranc e o f

th e capita

l murder . T o warran t

suc h a n instruction , Fuente s mus t hav e engage di n an affirmativ e ac t that promote dSim' s murder . Se e Paredes v . State, 12 9 S.W.3 d530 , 53 6 (Tex . Grim . App . 2004) . A witnes s i s no t anaccomplic e simpl y becaus e h e kne w abou t th e commissio n o f

th e offens e an ddi d no t repor t it ; no r becaus e h e helpe dth e accuse dt o conceal it . Smith, 33 2 S.W.3 dat 43 9 (citin g Gomezv. State, 73 7 S.W.2 d315 , 32 2 (Tex . Grim . App . 1987)) . Robinso n contend s that

th e followin g testimon y mad e some showin g that Fuente s acte da s an accomplic e t o th e capital murder : (1 ) Fuente s wa s friend s wit h Maso n an dSalodiur ; (2 ) Fuente s wa s th e leader o f agan g i n whic h Fuente s an d Maso n participate dhi committin g crime s generally ; (3 ) Fuente s drov e Maso n t o a meetin g wit

h Robinso n where Maso n tol dRobinso n that Sim s wa s dead ; (4 ) a

t th e meeting , Fuente s witnesse dRobinso n pay Maso n fo r committin g th e murder ; (5 ) Fuente s an dMason bot h routinely carrie dguns ; (6 ) Fuente s helpe dMaso n leav e th e country t o avoi dth e police ; (7 ) Maso n staye dat Fuentes' s residenc e afte r h e returne dt o th e country ; (8 ) Maso n an danother man came t o Fuentes' s residenc e wit h sk i masks , gloves , an dgun s an dstate dthat the y ha dsho t

someone ; (9 ) Fuente s helpe dMaso n ge t ri do f th e murde r

weapon , knowin g Maso n ha dsho t someone ; (10 ) Fuente s travele dwit h Maso n t o attemp t

amurde r o f anothe r person ; an d(11 ) Fuente s testifie dh e ha dbee n convicte do f adifferen t

attempte dmurder . Fac t issue s 1 , 2 , 5 , 10 , an d1 1 concer n activit y wholl y separate fro mthe offens e i n thi s case . T o b e a n accomplice , on e mus t hav e engage di n a

n affirmativ e ac t

promotin g th e offens e at issue , no t

adifferen t

crime . See Paredes, 12 9 S.W.3 da

t 536 . Fac t

issue s 3 , 4 , 6

, 7 , 8 an d9 demonstrat e Fuentes' s

### knowledg e o f Mason' s murde r

o f Sim s an dhi s understandin g that Robinso n wa s involved , bu t

awitnes s i s no t

an accomplic e simpl y becaus e o f hi s knowledg e o f th e offense , even i f

h e doe s no t

repor t th e offens e o r

help s t o concea l th e offense . Se e Smith, 33 2 S.W.S da t 439 . I n particular , Fuente' s assistanc e i n disposin g o f

aweapo n afte r

acrime doe s no t

mak e hi man accomplic e witnes s t o th e crim e withou t evidenc e o f

an affirmativ e ac t

promotin g th e commissio n o f th e murder . Here , ther e i s n o suc h evidence . Se e Druery, 22 5 S.W.3 da t 50 0 ("[W] e hav e previousl y hel dthat merel y assistin g afte r

th e fac t i n th e disposal o f

abod y doe s no t transfor mawitnes s into a

n accomplic e witnes s i n aprosecutio n fo r murder . Th e witnes s mus t still b e susceptibl e t o prosecutio n fo r th e murde r

itsel f b y havin g affirmativel y assistedi n committin g th e offense . Th e sam e logi c applie s t o assistin g [the defendant ] i n disposin g o f th e gu n afte r

th e murder ; th e fac t

that [the witness ] di ds o doe s no t make him . a

n accomplic e witnes s t

o the capita

l murder.") . W e hol dtha

t th e trial cour

t di dno t er r i n refusin g t o instruc t

th e jur y t o consider whether Fuente s wa s an accomplic e a s amatte r o f fact . Se e id

. II . Ineffectiv e Assistanc e o f Counse l T o prevai l o n aclai mo f ineffectiv e assistanc e o f counsel , th e defendan t mus t sho w tha t (1 ) hi s counsel' s performanc e wa s deficient ; an d(2 ) areasonabl e probability exist s that

th e resul t

o f th e proceedin g woul dhav e bee n different .Strickland

v . Washington, 46 6 U.S . 668 , 687 , 10 4 S . Ct . 2052 , 206 4 (1984) ; Lopez v . State, 34 3 S.W.3 d137 , 14 2 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011) . Trial counse l i n thi s cas e wa s retaine drathe r

than appointed , bu t

th e Strickland

tes t applie s t o retained , a s wel l a s appointed , counsel . Se e E x parte Briggs, 18 7 S.W.3 d458 , 46 9 (Tex . Grim . App . 2005 ) (quotin g Cuyler v . Sullivan, 44 6 U.S . 335 , 344-45 , 10 0 S . Ct . 1708 , 171 6 (1980) ) ("[W] e se e n o basi s fo r drawin g adistinctio n betwee n retaine dan d appointe dcounse l tha t

woul ddeny equal justic e t o defendants wh o mus t choos e thei r ow n lawyers.") . Th e firs t pron g o f

th e Strickland

tes t require s th e defendan t

t o sho w that counsel' s performanc e fel l belo w an objectiv e standardo f reasonableness ; i n tha

t counse l mad e suc h seriou s error s that h e wa s no t

functionin g effectivel y a s counsel . Strickland, 46 6 U.S . a t 687 , 104 S . C t

a t 2064 ; Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 da t 142 . Thus , th e defendan t mus t prov e objectively , b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidence , tha

t hi s counsel' s representatio n fel l belo w professiona l standards . Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 da

t 142 ; Mitchell

v . State, 6 8 S.W.3 d640 , 64 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2002) . W e indulg e astron g presumptio n that counsel' s conduc t

wa s withi n th e wid e rang e o f

reasonabl e professiona l assistance , an dth e appellan t mus t overcom e th e presumptio n tha t

th e challenge dactio n might b e soun dtria l strategy . Williams v . State, 30 1 S.W.3 d675 , 68 7 (Tex . Grim . App . 2009 ) (quotin g Garcia v . State, 5 7 S.W.3 d436 , 44 0 (Tex . Crim . App . 2001)) . Whe n direc t evidenc e i s no t

available , 

### 1 0w e wil l assume tha t counsel' s strateg y wa s reasonabl e i f an y reasonabl y soun d strateg y ca

n b e imagined . Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 da t 143 ; se e also Garza v . State, 21 3 S.W.3 d338 , 34 8 (Tex . Grim . App . 2007) . Strickland's secon dpron g require s th e defendan t t o sho w areasonabl e probabilit

y that , i f no t fo r counsel' s errors , th e result o f th e proceedin g woul dhav e bee n differen t

Strickland, 46 6 U.S . a

t 694 , 10 4 S . Ct . a

t 2068 ; Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 d at 142 . A reasonabl e probability i s " aprobability sufficien t t o undermin e confidenc e i n th e outcome. " Thompson v . State, 9S.W.3 d808 , 81 2 (Tex . Grim . App . 1999 ) (citin g Hernandezv . State, 72 6 S.W.2 d53 , 5 5 (Tex . Grim . App . 1986)) . W e consider

whethe r th e defendan t

ha s show n b y apreponderanc e o f th e evidenc e that

counsel' s action s "s o compromise dth e prope r functionin g o f

th e adversarial proces s that

th e trial cour

t canno t b e sai dt o hav e produce dareliabl e result " Ex

parte Martinez, 33 0 S.W.3 d891 , 90 1 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011 ) (citin g Strickland, 46 6 U.S . a

t 686,10 4 S . Ct . a

t 2064)) . Analysis Robinso n contend s tha

t hi s trial counse l wa s ineffectiv e becaus e h e elicite d testimony fro mapolic e witnes s tha t Maso n i s servin g alif

e sentenc e fo r

Sims' s murder , an dbecaus e h e faile dto objec t to th e State' s question s tha t clarifie do n redirec t tha t Mason' s convictio n wa s fo r th e capital murde r

fo r hire an dtha t Robinso n ha dhire dMason . O n redirect , th e witnes s testified : 1 1Counsel : I believ e that yo u were aske do n cross-examinatio n abou t that Bo b Maso n i s currentl y servin g alif e sentenc e fo r

thi s case , right ? Fikaris : Yes , sir . Counsel : An dh e i s servin g alif e sentenc e fo r

thi s case , right ? Fikaris : That' s correct . Counsel : An dwhe n yo u charge dhi mwit h capita l murder , wa s th e aggravatin g facto r

i n th e charge s yo u file dtha t h e committe dmurder

for-hir e b y Ronal dRobinson ? Fikaris : Yes , sir . Counsel : An dthat' s what h e wa s convicte dof? Fikaris : That' s correct . Robinso n cite s E

x parte Hill

t o argu e that

i f defens e counse l open s th e doo r to evidenc e o f

aco-defendant' s convictio n fo r th e sam e offense , counsel wa s ineffective , an dth e defendan t shoul db e give n ane w trial . Se e Ex parte Hill, 86 3 S.W.2 d48 8 (Tex . Grim . App . 1993) . I n Hill, defens e counse l proffere dth e co defendant a s a n alibi witnes s an dopene dth e doo r to th e State' s introductio n o f evidenc e o f

th e witness' s guilt

y plea , underminin g th e alib i o f hi s client . Id

. a t 489 . I n thi s case , Maso n wa s no t a n alibi witness . Defens e counse l instead elicite dtestimon y fro mapolic e witnes s that Maso n wa s agan g member , ha dan extensiv e crimina

l record , an dwa s i n priso n fo r aviolen t

crime ; thus , hi s statement s implicatin g Robinso n were no t trustworthy . Defens e counse l coul d 1 2hav e introduce devidenc e o f Mason' s convictio n a s part o f areasonabl e trial strateg y t o demonstrat e that Maso n wa s no t

credibl e an dattempte dt o implicate Robinso n durin g hi s ow n trial Se e Heiman v . State, 92 3 S.W.2 d622 , 626-27 (Tex . App.—Housto n [1st Dist ] 1995 , pet . re f

d ) (holdin g tha t

failur e t o objec t

t o inadmissibl e testimon

y about extraneou s offense s coul dhav e bee n trial strateg y demonstratin g victim' s lac k o f credibility) . Assumin g withou t decidin g that counse l erre di n elicitin g th e testimon y that Maso n wa s convicte dbecaus e Robinso n hire dhi mt o murde r Sims , Robinso n fail s t o sho w tha t th e outcom e o f th e proceedin g woul dhav e bee n differen t ha dhi s counse l no t

elicite dtestimony abou t Mason' s fate . Th e Stat e proffere dabundant

evidenc e o f

Robinson' s guilt , includin g Robinson' s threatenin g behavio r towar dSim s an dJeneanne , hi s presenc e i n fron t o f th e Simses ' hous e i n th e evening s befor e Sun s lef t fo r work , J . Martinez' s testimony abou t Mason' s meetin g wit

h Robinson , Fuentes' s testimon y that Robinso n ha dpai dMaso n t o kil l someone , an dK . Martinez' s testimon y tha t Robinso n pai dMaso n t o kil l Sim s becaus e o f Sims' s affai r

wit h Robinson' s wife . W e conclud e tha

t Robinso n ha s faile dt o mee t th e secon dpron g o f Strickland. Se e Exparte Martinez, 33 0 S.W.3 d891 , 90 4 (Tex . Grim . App . 2011 ) ("I t i s unlikely , i n th e fac e o f al l th e evidenc e wit

h whic h th e jur y wa s presented , that th e jur y woul dhav e reache dadifferen t conclusio n i n th e absenc e o f th e gang relate devidence.") .

1 3Becaus e Robinso n ha s faile dt o sho w areasonabl e probability that , bu t fo r counsel' s actions , th e resul t o f th e proceedin g woul dhav e bee n different , w e hol d that Robinso n ha s faile dt o satisf y th e secon dpron g o f

an ineffectiv e assistanc e claim . Se e Strickland, 46 6 U.S . a t 694 , 10 4 S . Ct . a

t 2068 ; Lopez, 34 3 S.W.3 da t 142 . Conclusio n W e hol dthat

th e trial cour

t di dno t er r i n no t givin g th e jur y an accomplice

witnes s instructio n wit

h respec t t o Fuentes' s testimony . W e furthe r hol dthat Robinso n ha s no t

show n tha

t h e receive dineffectiv e assistanc e o f counse l a

t trial . W e therefore affir mth e judgmen t o f th e tria l court .

Jan e Blan d Justic e Pane l consist s o f

Justice s Keyes , Bland , an dMassengale . D o no t publish . Se e TEX . R . APP . P . 47.2(b) .

14