i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 63 9- CR Ramiro TREVINO , Ap pe lla nt
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee F ro m th e 81 st Jud ic ia l D istri c t Co ur t, A ta sc os a

County , T e xas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 07 -1 1- 03 17 -C RA Honora ble Stella Sax on, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 16, 2009 AFF I RMED Ramiro Trevino wa s char g ed with the ag g ravated sexual assault of his g irlfriend’ s thirteeny ear -old daug hter. A jury found Tre vino guilty of the lesse r included of

fense of indec ency

with a ch i l d b y co n tact and se ntence d him to twenty y ear s in prison and a fine of $10,000.00. Tre vino appea ls the judgme nt, arguing his trial c ounsel was inef fec tive. We affir

m the judgme nt.04
- 08
- 00 63 9- CR

- 2- To establish ineff

ective assistance of

counsel, a

defe ndant must show (1) his trial counse l’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt, and (2) the defic ient perf ormanc e pre

judiced him to such a de g ree that he wa s deprived of

a fa ir trial. Strickland v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 , 6 87 (1 98 4) ; Hernande z v. Sta te , 9 88 S.W. 2d

77 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). To sh owde fi c ie nt p e rf or manc e the de fe nd ant m

us t show counsel’ s perf

ormanc e fe ll below an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss and re but the presumption t hat counse l’s trial dec isions were ba sed on sound strateg y . Tho mp so n v . S tate , 9 S.W. 3d 80 8, 81 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The a lleg ed inef

fec tiveness must be aff

irmat i v el y d emonstrated in the r ecor d, and “tr ial counsel should ordinar ily be af forde d an opportunity to e x plain his a ctions befor e beingdenounce d as ineff ective.” Ry lan de r v. St ate , 101 S.W .3d 107, 110-111 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). When the
re c or d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l do e s n ot r e fl e c t th e mot ive be hin d tr ia l c ouns e l’ s a cti on s, ap pe lla nt w ill g ener ally be unable to establish that trial counsel’ s perf ormanc e fe ll below an objec tive standard of
rea sonablene ss and, there by unable to satisfy

the first prongof Strickland
. Id. To show pre judice, “[t] he def

endant must show that there is a rea sonab l e p ro bability that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S.
a t 6 9 4
. T h e d e f

e n d an t b e ar s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, Mo or e v . S tate , 694 S.W .2d 528, 531 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1985).

“ F a ilure to m a ke the re qu ir e d s ho wi ngof e ith e r de fi c ie nt pe rf or manc e or su ff

ic ie nt p re jud ic e de fe a ts the ineff ectivene ss claim.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 70 0; see Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 3; Garcia v. Sta te , 887 S.W .2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), cert. de nied , 514 U.S. 1021 (1995). Trevino f irst complains couns el wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he did not challeng e a ve nire member f or ca use. The ve nire m em b er s t at ed during voir dire that she could not consider g iving04
- 08
- 00 63 9- CR

- 3- Tr e vin o p ro batio n if the jur y fo un d him g uil ty of a g g ra vate d sexua l a

bu se of a c hil d. Th e State did not attempt to rehabilitate the venire member and defe nse counsel did not challeng e her for c ause. The ve nire membe r became a juror. Trevino argues the fa ilure to cha lleng e the ve nire membe r for
cause “wa s not a rea sonable strateg y , and ... her presenc e was a re sult of trial counsel’s mistake or
err or, not a c alculate d choice .” We disa g ree with T revino’s contention that we must conc lude counse l made an e rror instead of a c alculate d choice and that no rea sonable trial strateg y would support such a choice
. The re cord is silent as to counsel’s reasons for not challeng ing the venire member. H oweve r, it appea rs from the re c or d th a t c ouns e l ma de a de lib e ra te c ho ic e no t to c ha lle ng e the ve nir e me mbe r. I mme diate ly
a ft e r t he ve nir e pe rs on

state d h e r i nabil it y to c on sid e r p ro batio n, the tr ia l ju dg e a dv ise d d e fe ns e counsel, “whene v e r

y o uh a v e a

c h a ll e n g e y o un e e d

to ma k e it if y o uw an t t o ma

k e it
. ” T r e v in o’s attorney acknow ledg ed the judge ’s statement, but allowed voir dir e to continue without cha lleng ing the venire member. There afte r, counsel e x amined and suc cessf ully challeng ed seve ral ve niremen fo r c a u s e , in c lu d in g o n e s w h o a v e r r e d th e y c o u ld n o t c o n s id e r

p r o b a ti o nf

o r th e o f f e n s e c h arg ed. I t is a pp are nt c ouns e l w a s awa

re he c ou ld c ha lle ng e a ve nir e pe rs on on thi s g ro un d a

nd wa s c a pa ble of e ff e c tiv e ly makin g su c h a c ha lle ng e . What is n ot a pp are nt f ro m th e re c or d is why

c ouns e l c ho se not to challeng e this particular juror. The re cord doe s not con t ai n an y other infor

mation about the venire person – she was not asked a ny other individ u al v o i r d i re que stions and no juror information ca rds ar e in the re cord. Howeve r, the re cord r efle cts that in the morning , befor e the voir dire in this ca se, most members of the venire participated in the voir dire in another case. Def ense counsel s tated on the recor d that he was in the c ourtroom duringthat voir dire a nd hear d most of the venire members’ answe rs. Counsel04
- 08
- 00 63 9- CR

- 4- c ou ld h a ve le arn e d in fo rm a tio n a bo ut t he ve nir e pe rs on

duri ngthat se ssi on

that do e s no t a

pp e ar i n the record of this case . Counsel could have decide d not to strike the venir eper son based on what he observe d in the ear lier voir dire , information provided by Trevino, or the ve nirepe rson’s deme anor. Moreove r, counse l could have de termined the ve nirepe rson would be g ood juror for the def ense on the issue of guilt or innocence , and that this outweig hed any punishment conce rns. Be cause the motive for c ounsel’s inac tion does not appea r in the re cord a

nd he could have made a sound tactica l decision not to strike the venire person, Trevino ha s failed to mee t his burden
u n d er t h e s ec o n d

p ro n g o f S

tr ic kland to show counsel’s pe rfor

mance fell below a

n objective standa

rd of re asonable ness. Trevi n o n e xt ar g u e s c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e h e f a il e d to e n s ure a sworn application for probation was filed. Dur ing the p u n i s h ment phase c harg e conf ere nce, a fter all the evidenc e had been presente d, the S tate objected to the submission of a probation instruction beca use Tre vino’s application for probation was not sw orn. Trevino’ s attorney expressed his belief the deputy

cler k had notar ized Trevino’s s i gn at u re at t he time the motion was filed. The court sustained the objec tion and ref used to submit the probation instruction. To succe ed on this ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim, Tre vino must show t h at abse nt
c ouns e l’ s d e fi c ie nt p e rf

or manc e , th e re su lt of the pr oc e e din g wo uld pr ob a bly have be e n d if

fe re nt. See Mi tc he ll v . S

tate , 6 8 S. W. 3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 3 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 2 )
. T h e r an g e o f p u n is h me n t f or indece ncy with a child by

contac t, a sec ond deg ree felony , is two to twenty y ear s in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . art s. 12 .3 3, 21 .1 1( a )( 1) (V e rn on 20 03 ). Tr e vin o w ou ld have be en elig ible fo r jury rec ommended probation only if the jury

sentenc ed him to a term of04
- 08
- 00 63 9- CR

1 ... J u ry re c o m m e n d e d c o m m u n ity su p e rv isio n is no lo n g e r a v a ilab le to o n e c o n v ic te d o f ind e c e n c y w ith a c h ild if the vic tim is un d e r fo u rte e n ye a rs o ld . T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt 4 2 .1 4 , se c . 4 (d )( 5 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ); s ee Act of M ay 18, 2007, 80t h Leg
. , R
. S. , ch
. 593, §§ 1. 06, 4. 01( a) , 2007 T EX . G EN . L A W S 11 2 0 , 11 2 3 , 11 4 8 (making change i n l aw e f f ec t i v e f or of f en s es c ommi t t ed on or a f t er Se pt embe r 1, 2007)
. T r ev i n o c ommi t t ed t h i s of f en s e i n M ay 2007.

- 5- imprisonment that did not exceed ten y ear s. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.12, sec . 4(d)( 1) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). 1 The e vidence befor e the jury on punishment included t h e co m plainant’s testimony that Trevino fondled her brea sts a nd her vag ina both on top of and under her cloth i n g. T h e S tate’s fore nsic DNA a

naly st testified a “substantial amount” of Trevino’ s DNA was prese nt on a swab of the complainant’ s brea st. Although the complainant’s mother repe atedly testified she be lieved her daug hter wa s ly ing, the jury obviously

disag ree d when it found Tr evino g uilty of indec ency

with a child by contac t. During the punishment phase, the j u ry l earned Tr evino had pr eviously been char g e d w ithind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d. I n th a t c a se , T re vin o p le a de d n o c on te st t o th e c ha rg e in
e xch ang e fo r a

re c omm e nd a tio n th a t a dju dic a tio n b e de fe rr e d. Tr e vin o s uc c e ssf ull y c omp le te d s ix y ear s of community

supervision and wa s discharg ed. Th e jur y he ard fr om t he c omp la ina

nt’ s mo the r t

hat sh e wa s sti ll se e ing Tr e vin o a t th e tim e of trial, he w as “a

g ood fathe r figure” to her c hildren, including the complainant’ s y oung er sister, a nd she wa nted Tre vino to stay

with her. She testi fi ed t h at if Tre vino were place d on probation, she would help him comply

with the conditions. She stated she had not a sked Tre vino about the pr e vio us c ha

rg e be c a us e sh e did

no t be lie ve Tr e vin o h a d c omm itt e d any of fe ns e and c on tin ue d to believe the complainant fabricated her story as well. Finally , the j ury hear d from an of

fice r in the Atascosa County Ad u l t Probation Depa rtment who super

vises sex offender s that he would not
rec ommend Trevino f

or probation.04
- 08
- 00 63 9- CR

- 6- The jury was c harg ed to impose a sente nce of betwee n two and twenty y ear s incarc eration and g iven the option of imposing a fine of up to $10,000. Trevino’ s counsel aske d the jury to show leniency
. Af

ter de liberatingless than thirteen minutes, the jury imposed the maxi mum fine and prison term. Nothing in this record s u gges ts the jury , had it been pr esente d with the option of probati o n , w o u ld

h a v e im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f

te ny e ar s o r

le s s an d r e c o mm e n d e d

p r o b a ti o n. Acc ording ly , Trevino ha s failed to show he was pre judiced by

counsel’s a ctions. We theref ore a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.
Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice

DO NO T PU B L I SH