i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 09 8- CR Shawn BEAN , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 290th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-2614 Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 3, 2010 AFF I RMED A j ury found appellant Shawn Bean guilty of possession of a c ontrolled substance , less than one g ram. Af

ter a ppellant pled “T rue” to two e nhance ments, the jury assessed punishment at five and a ha lf y ear s’ conf

inement. On appe al, appe lla n t argues (1) the trial cour t erre d by ref using de fe ns e c o u n s e l ’ s r e qu e s tt o w i t h dr aw an d ( 2 ) h e w a s d e p r i v e d

o f e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o un se l. We a ff ir m.04
- 09
- 00 09 8- CR

- 2- F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND I n the early morning of Februa ry 21, 2008, Patrol Offic er H artfor d L emm spotted appellant walking down Hay s Street in the roa d near the cur b, not on the near

by sidewalk, in violation of the Texas Transportation Code. See T EX . T RA N SP . C ODE ANN . § 552.006(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009) (pede strian may

not walk along a n d o n roadw ay if adjac ent sidewa lk is provided and ac cessible)
. Offic er L emm testified appe llant’s arm a ppear ed st i ff

, indicating to Office r L emm that appellant might be c arr

y ing a wea pon or drug s. Offic er L emm follo we d ap p el lant in his patrol car and eventua lly

stopped his car

and ca lled appe l lant over. A ppellant stopped wa lking, took two steps towards the of

fice r, and the n dropped a plastic bag from his hand. When appellant reac hed the patrol
c ar, the of fi c e r pe rf or me d a qu ic k “ pat do wn ” fo r we a po ns . Of fi c e r L e mm the n r e tr ie ve d th e pla sti c bagappellant had dropped and immediately suspected its c ontents to be cra ck coca ine. Appellant
was a rre sted, and the ba g ’s contents subseque ntly tested positive for c ocaine
. On Fe bruar

y 22, 2008, the trial cour

t appointed appe llant his first attorney . On J une 6, 2008, appellant’ s counsel filed a mot ion for substi tuted counsel c iting a c onflict of intere st not conducive to the attorney -c l i en t relationship. The trial court g rante d the motion and appointed a se cond
a tto rn e y to repr esen t a

pp e lla nt. On Au g us t 19 , 2 00 8, a

pp e lla nt f ile d a pr o s e mot ion

to d ism iss appointed counsel claiming an irrepar able and antag onistic relationship with his second c ounsel. On September 3, 2008, a

p p el l an t ’s second attorney filed a motion to withdraw a s counsel citing an inability t o ef fe ct i v el y co m m u n i ca t e w i t h ap p el l an t . T h e t ri al co u rt gra n t edt h e m o t i o nan d ap p o i nted appellant a third attorney . A fe w months later and le ss than a we ek bef ore tria l, the third attorney fi le d a mot ion to wi thdr aw a s c ouns e l st a tin g sh e wa s una ble to c omm

un ic a te e ff

e c tiv e ly wi th appellant. When the case was c alled for trial, counsel f

or appe llant informed the c ourt that appe llant04
- 09
- 00 09 8- CR

- 3- had filed a

complaint aga i n s t h er w ith the State Ba r of Te x as alleg ing she was not conta cting or communicating with him eff ectively
. The trial court replied, “I have my own opinion about why he may have done this, which has ver y littl e to do with y our actions. I think it’s jus t a delay ing ta ctic, and I am g oing to de ny

y our motion.” The c ase pr ocee ded to trial, and a fter the j u ry found the appellant guilty , this appeal e nsued. DI SCU SSIO N I n his first issue on appea l, appellant ar g ues the trial c o u rt er re d by not allowing his third attorney to withdraw e ven thoug h appellant ha d filed a g rieva nce ag ainst her with the State B ar of Texas. We review the trial court’s ref usal to a llow c ounsel to w ithdraw from a case for a n abuse of discretion. Kin g v . S

tat e , 29 S. W
. 3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The rig ht to counsel may not be manipulated so a s to obstruct the judicial proce ss or interfe re w ith the administration of justice. Id. A trial cour t has no duty

to searc h for c ounsel ag ree able to the defenda nt. Id. Personality

conflicts and disa g ree ments conce rning trial strateg y are ty pically not va lid gr ounds for withdrawa l. Id. Ad dit ion a lly , fi lin g a g ri e va nc e a g a ins t an a

pp oin te d a tto rn e y do e s n ot p e r s e c re a te
a c on fl ic t of

int e re st. Se e Pe rry

v . S tat e , 4 64 S.W. 2d

66 0, 66 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 71 ) ( fi lin g c ivi l action ag ainst appointed attorne y does not per se cre ate c onflict of intere st). Her e, appe llant presents no e vidence of an a ct u al conflict of inter est betwe en his third attorney and himself. His g rieva

nce doe s not appea

r in the re cord, a

nd the only

in d i ca tion of the g rounds of the g rieva

nce is c ounsel’s statement to the c ourt that ap p el lant “is complaining [t o the State Ba r of Te x as] tha t I ’m not communicating with him.” Se e W arre n v . S tat e , 98 S.W .3d 739, 74 4- 45 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 3, pe t. r e f’ d) (m e re a lle g a tio n o f i ne ff e c tiv e c omm

un ic a tio n n ot v a lid04
- 09
- 00 09 8- CR

- 4- g ro un ds fo r w ith dr awa l)
. Af te r a re vie w of the re c or d, we c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion whe n it denied appe llant’s third appointed counse l’s motion to wit hdraw
. I n his second issue on appe al, appe llant argu es h e wa s deprive d of ef fec tive assistance of counsel be cause his attorney failed t o s ec u re a timely ruling on a motion to suppress. Appellant
a c kn ow le dg e s c ouns e l f

ile d a mot ion to s up pr e ss a lle g ingthe po lic e arr e ste d h im w ith ou t pr ob a ble
cause or other lawful authority ; how ever , counsel informed the court she wanted the motion to run

“ c on c ur re ntl y wi th t he he ari ng of the e vid e nc e in the tr ia l so that the Court c ou ld a t the a pp ro pr ia te tim e make a

ru lin g on [the ] mot ion to s up pr e ss. ” Ap pe lla nt a rgue s “ no re a so na

ble a tto rn e y

wo uld try an entire case in front of the jury and then se ek to suppress the e ntire ca se.” To de te rm ine wh e the r a

pp e lla nt w a s d e pr ive d o f e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nce of counse l, w e a

pp ly the well-e stablished s t an d ard set forth in Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Appellant must demonstrate his trial c ounsel’s per formanc e w a s d e f ic ie nt a n d that the def

iciency was
s o s e r io u s th a t i t p r e

ju d ic e d h is d efe nse. Id. Howeve r, a r eviewingcourt will g ener ally assume a strateg ic motive if any

can be imag ined and find counsel’s perfor mance defic ient only if his conduct was so outra g eous that n o co m p et ent attorney would have e ng ag ed in it. An dr e ws v . S tat e , 159 S.W .3d 98, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). He re , we a ssume a str a te g ic mot ive fo r c ouns e l’ s a c tio ns e xists
. I f a tr ia l c ourt do e s n ot r

ule on a motion to suppress until after jeopa rdy attache s, a ruling in favor of the def endant is not appea lable by

the State. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 4 4. 01 (a)(5) (Ver

no n 2 00 6) (S ta te
e nti tle d to a

pp e a l or de r o n mo tio n to su pp re ss o nly

if je op ard y ha s n ot atta c he d) . In a

state jur y tr ia l, jeopar dy attache s when the jury is e mpaneled an d sworn. State v. More no , 294 S.W .3d 594, 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Her e, counsel’s decision to run the motion concurr ently with the trial left04
- 09
- 00 09 8- CR

- 5- op e n th e po ssi bil ity

that a fa vo ra ble ru lin g on the mot ion to sup pr e ss af te r j e op ard

y a tta c he d w ou ld
c on c lus ive ly

su pp re ss th e evi de nc e a g a ins t a pp e lla nt. Ac c or din g ly , a

pp e lla nt h a s f a ile d to demo n s t ra t e h i s co un s el ’s ac t i o n s we re d ef i ci en t , t h er eb y

p re cl u d i n g h i s ar gu m en tt h at h e w as denied
e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e s o n a

pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh