### NUM BER 13-08- 443- 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 - 

## EDI NBURG
SA M UEL M ORG A N, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 4th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Samuel M org an, a ppe a ls from an o rd er r ev oki ng hi s c ommunit y super v is ion and sent enci ng hi m to fiv e y ears’ i mp ris o n m ent. By tw o i ss ues, appel lan t
c o n t e n d s h is p le a o f

t ru e wa s in vo lu n t a ry, a n d h e co m p la in s h e re c e ive d in e f fe c t iveT he St at e di d no t f i l e an app el l at e br i efi n t hi s case. 1 2 as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el

. W e affi r m. 1 I. Proce dura l Hi story On Mar ch 30, 2007, appell ant, pursuantto a plea ag re ement, ple aded gu il ty i n the 94t h J u d icial Di strict Court of Nueces Cou nty, Texas, to th e of fense of assau lt-fam ily
v iol ence, a thi rd -d eg re e f elo ny
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22.01( a) (1 ), ( b) (2 ) (V er non Supp. 2008). T h e t ri al cour t found hi m g uil ty , as ses sed a s uspen ded s entenc e of ten y ears’ impr is onment plu s a $1,000 fine, and pla ced him on four y ears’ co m munit y super v is ion

. On J anuar

y 4, 2008, the N ueces C ounty D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s Office fil ed a moti on to
re v oke appel lan t’ s c ommunit y su per v is ion , al leg ing appel lan t had v iol ated the fol low ing ter ms and co ndi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion : 1. CO MM IT N O O FF EN SE A GAIN ST THE LAW S of this Sta te or of any other Sta te or of the U nit ed St ates ; t o w it : On or about September 30, 2007, the def end ant comm itted the of fense of A ssault w ith Injury-F am ily Violence (3rd degree felon y ) in Aust in, T rav is County, Te x as. (Travis C oun ty District Atto rney Aff idavit #D1DC07 500 530 ) 8. PAY the fol low ing BY C ASH IER ’S C HE CK

ORM ON EY

OR DE R in one or sev er al sums pay abl e throug h the N ueces C ounty C SC D as deter mined by the Cou rt : d. The defendant fail ed to pay a PSI f ee in t he amountof $25.00 due on or before 09- 01- 07. (B ala nce $10.00) f. The d e f e n dant faile d to pay a mont hly

su per v is ion fee at t he rate of $30.00 b eg inn ing 0 5- 01- 07 and each and ev er y month ther eafter while un d e r su p e rvi s io n fo r th e m o n th of Ju ly, 2 0 0 7 th ro u gh Nov ember , 200 7. ( Ar re ars $ 240.00) 10-1 Y OU ARE ORDE RED TO AT T END, PART ICIPAT E, PAY FOR AND COMPLET E IN A SAT ISFACT ORY MANNER; d. FEL ON YVIC TIM IM PAC T PAN EL prog ra m w it hin s ix month s o f3 the d ate o f probat ion as di re cte d; t o w it : The defendant has fail ed to enro l l i n t h e F e l o n y V i c t i m I mp a c t P a n e l b y S e p t e mb e r 3 0 , 2007 as directe d by comm unity supervisi on o f f icer All is u n [sic] Morg an in T ra vis Co u n t y. T here af ter, on Februa ry

13, 20 08, app ellant plead ed guiltyin Travis Coun ty, T exas, to t he offense of ass aul t- family v iol ence and w as pla ced on defer re d- adj udi cat ion community s u p e rvisi on for that off ense. Ap pel lan t w as re pr esent ed i n Tra v is C ounty by atto rney Thu y -Nhi M orel. On Jun e 6, 2008 , the 94th Judicial District C ourt con duct ed a hea ring on th e Sta te’s
mo tion to rev oke. Duri ng this hearing, app ellant plead ed true to the allegation s alleged in the mot ion. A fte r hear ing tes ti mony and arg uments from defense co unsel and the pr osec uti on, t he tr ial co urt found t he al leg ati ons to be tr ue, rev oked appel lan t’ s c ommunit y super v is ion , and se ntenc ed hi m to fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonment

. II. D is cus si on A. Inv olu ntar ine ss of Pleas In i ss ue one, appel lan t contend s his Febr uar y 13, 2008 g uil ty

pl ea i n Tra v is C ounty to t he offense of ass aul t- family v iol ence as w ell as his p le a of tr ue to thatoff ense as
a ll e ge d in t h e m o t io n t o re vo k e we re b o t h in vo lu n t a ry. Sp e c if ic a ll y, h e a rg u e s t h a tT h u yNh i Mo r e l , t h e at to rn e y w h o rep re se n te d hi m atth e Fe b ru a ry 13 , 2 0 0 8 pl e a he a rin g, pr omis ed him that if he ple aded g uil ty , appel lan t “w oul d re cei v e a si x ty day sa nct ion , and be r ein sta ted o n probati on i n N ueces County ”, “ w hic h the n l ed [a ppel lan t] to pl ead t ru e to the a ll eg ati on i n N ueces County , f als ely ex pect ing the re sul t t hat w as promis ed by ” attor ney T huy-Nhi M orel.4

1. Standa rd

of Rev iew The Stat e bears t he burden of sh ow ing by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that the defendant c ommitt ed a v iol ati on of the co m m u n ity -s uper v is ion co ndi ti ons. Ant win e v. State , 2 6 8 S. W .3 d 63 4 , 6 3 6 (T e x. Ap p
. – Ea st la n d 20 0 8 , p e t. ref ’d ) (ci ti n g Cob b v . St ate , 851 S. W .2d 8 71, 8 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1993) ; Kul hanek v. Sta te , 587 S.W .2d 4 24, 4 26 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1979) ). W e rev iew the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

r ev oki ng co mmunity

su per v is ion under an a buse- of-di sc re ti on s tandard. Id . (c it in g Rick els v. Sta te , 202 S.W .3d 7 59, 7 63 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; Car dona v. S tate , 665 S.W .2d 492 , 493 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 4)). T he trial cou rt is the sole j udge of the w itnesse s’s credibility and the w eight giv en to their te st im o n y, an d we r e view t h e e vide n ce i n t h e ligh t m o stfa vora b le to th e tri a l co u rt ’s ru lin g. Id . (c it in g Car

dona, 665 S. W .2d a t 493 ; Gar re tt v. State , 61 9 S. W .2 d 17 2, 1 74 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1981) ). I f

t h e S ta te does not meet i ts burden of proof, the tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis cr eti on i n r ev oki ng the communi ty su per v is ion

. Id . (ci ti n g Car

dona , 665 S.W .2d 4 93- 94)

. Proof by

a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce of any one of the al leg ed v iol ati ons of the communi ty -s uper

v is ion co ndi ti ons is su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t a re v ocat ion order

. Id . (cit ing Mo or e v . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 9 24, 9 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ; Leach v. Sta te , 170 S.W .3d 669, 672 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 2005, pe t. re f’d) ). A ple a of tr ue, s tandi ng al one, suppo rt s the rev ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion

. See C ole v. Sta te , 5 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 2 7 , 1 2 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1979) (h old ing a ple a of t ru e to one all eg ati on is suffici ent t o s uppor t rev ocat ion of proba tion). 2. Ana lysis Dur ing the re v ocat ion heari ng , the tri al cour t t old appel lan t, “I ’m n ot g oin g to hol d the fact th at y ou’ re not pay ing ag ain st y ou.” How ev er , w hen defense co unsel as ked appel lan t, “The v ic ti m impac t pan el, y ou s aid thaty ou had not e nroll ed bySeptember 30, 2007, w hy5

is that ?” , app ell ant repl ied , “ No ex cus e, I g uess
. I j ustdi dn’ t.

. . .” After appel lan t t est ified , the t ri al cour

t hea rd clos ing arg uments and then sta ted, “A ll r ig ht. The C our t hav ing already found al leg ati ons, 1, 8, an d 10- 1 tr ue, I her eby r ev oke [a p p e lla n t’ s] communi ty super v is ion probati on and sent ence him to fiv e y ears TD C.

. . . ” Ev en i f w e as sume a ppel lan t i nv olu ntar il y pl eaded t ru e to the o ff ense of assa ult
family v iol ence as all eg ed in the moti on to r ev oke, appel lan t pl eaded t ru e i n open cour t t o fa il in g “t o e n ro ll in t h e Fe lo n y V ic t im I m p a c tP a n e l b y S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 a s d ir e c t e d b y” his com mu nity supe rv ision of f icer. “To overturn a revocation order, a de fend ant must successf ully

challen ge each f inding on which the revocation is based. ” Har ri s v . St ate , 160 S.W .3d 621, 626 (Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2005, no pet .) ; see als o Jones v. State , 571 S.W .2d 191, 193- 94 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1978) (d e clining to cons ide r defendant’ s c hal len g e to one all eg ed v iol ati on w hen t her e w as suffici ent e v ide nce to su p p o rt a di ff er ent a ll eg ed vio la t io n ). Vi e win g t h e e vid e n c e in t h e li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s ru li n g, we
conc lud e the Stat e est abl is hed by a pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce that appel lan t “ faile d to en roll in the Felon y

Victim Im pact Pane l by Sept em ber 30 , 2 0 0 7 as directed by ” his communi ty -s uper

v is ion off ic er , as al leg ed in the moti on to re v oke. W e hol d, t her efore, that the t ri al cour

t di d not abuse it s dis creti on i n r ev oki ng appel lan t’ s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. See A ntwin e , 268 S.W .3d a t 636

. W e ov er ru le the first is sue. B. Ineff ect iv e As si sta nce of C ounse l In hi s s econd i ss ue, appel lan t arg ues couns el’ s ineffecti v eness rendered hi s p lea of tru e i nv olu ntar

y . Appel lan t arg ues that attor ney Thuy -N hi Mo re l’s s ta te m e nt t hat appel la n t “w oul d g et a si x ty day sa nct ion and re ins tatementas a resul t [ of] tak ing the def erred ad judicat ion ple a ba rg ain [for the o f fense of assau lt-fam ily

v iolen c e in Travis Cou nty] w as false and er ro neous ” becau se the Nuec es Coun ty prosec utor

“ knew noth ingAt t or ney T huy
- N hi M or el di d not t est i f y at t he r ev ocat i on hear i ng. Appel l ant di d no t f i l e a m ot i on f or 2 n e w tr ia l. 6 of the promis e tha t had been made to” appel lan t. He furth er arg ues that attor ney

Thuy -N hi Morel shou ld have taken the T rav is County case to trial.

2 1. Appl ic able Law Both federal and sta te c onst it uti ons g uar antee a def endant the ri g ht to c ounse l. See U. S. C ON ST . amend. VI; T EX
. C ON ST
. A rt

. 1 , § 1 0

. De fe n d a n t s h a ve a ri gh tt o e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel at a probati on- re v ocat ion hear ing unl ess i t i s af f ir mati v ely

w aiv ed. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.12, § 21( d) (Ver non Supp. 2008)

. “The ri g ht to c ounse l af fords an acc u s ed a n att orne y ‘reasona bly likely

to rend er and rende ring reaso nab ly ef fe c t ive a s s istance .’” Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 06 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) (qu o ti n g Can non v

. St ate , 668 S.W .2d 4 01, 4 02 ( Tex . C ri m
. Ap p . 1984))

. In an alyz ing claims of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel, w e ap ply the tw o-pa rt test an nou nced in Str ic kl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U. S. 668 (1 984)

. Ex parte Ellis , 2 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2007)

. Und er this f ra mew or k, appel lan t “ must prov e by a preponderance of the evidence th at: (1) ‘his counse l’s performa nce was de f icient’; and (2) ‘there is a ‘reason able prob ability’—one suf

f icient to und ermin e conf iden ce in the result—tha t the outco me w ould h a ve b een dif

feren t but for his coun sel’s def icient pe rforma nce. ’” Id . (qu o ti n g E x p a r te Cha ndler

, 182 S.W .2d 3 50, 3 53 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) ). To est abl is h defic ien t per formanc e , app ell ant “ must show that‘ couns el w as not act ing as ‘ a r eason abl y co mpetent attor ney,’ a n d h is adv ic e w as not ‘ w it hin the ra ng e of
c om pe te nc e de ma nd ed of at to r ne y s i n c r i mi na l c as es.’” Id

. (quo ti n g Ex par te Chandler

, 182 S.W .3d at 354 ). Appellan t “must ov ercom e the ‘strong presum ption that coun sel’s cond uct f ell w ithin th e w ide range of reason able p rofession al assistan ce.’” Id . ( q uoti ng7

T h o m p s o n v . State , 9 S .W .3d 8 08, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ). Ther efore, appel lan t “mus t ‘ ov er come t he presumpt ion that , und er the ci rc umstan ces , th e c hal len g ed ac ti on might be conside red sou nd trial strate gy .’” Id . (qu o ti n g Mi nie l v. State , 831 S.W .2d 3 10, 323 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ). “The rea sonab len ess of an attor ney ’s performanc e is jud g ed
acc or din g to the ‘ pr ev ail ing professi onal nor ms’ and inc lud es an ex aminat ion of all the facts
an d c ir cum stan ces involv ed in a ca se.” Id . (qu o ti n g Str ic kl and , 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t6 8 8 )

. W e “‘must b e highly def eren tial to tri al coun sel and avoid the dele teriou s ef fects of hindsight.’” Id . (qu o ti n g Thom

pson , 9 S.W .3d a t 813 ). Und er the sec ond prong of the Str ic kl and anal y si s, appel lan t “ must est abl is h tha t the ‘ cons ti tuti onal ly

defic ien t per

formance pr eju dic ed hi s d efense—t hat i s, he mus t s how that ‘t her e i s a r eason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor c o unsel ’s unprofessi onal er ro rs , t he result of the proce edin g w ould have been dif feren t.’” Id . (qu o ti n g Ex par te Chandler

, 182 S.W .3d a t 354 ). “ ‘A

r eason abl e probabi li ty i s a probabi li ty

su ff ic ien t t o undermi ne conf iden ce in the outco me .’” Id . a t 3 3 0 -3 1 (quo ti n g Str ic kl and , 466 U.S. at 69 4)

. “W hen maki ng th is det er minat ion , any co nst it uti onal ly

defic ien t ac ts or

omi ss ion s w il l be consid ered in lig ht of

the ‘ t o t a li ty of

the evidence before the judge or jury .’” Id . at331 (qu o ti n g Str

ic kl and , 466 U.S. at 69 5). 2. Ana lysis Ev en if w e assume attor ney T huy -N hi M or el’ s adv ic e to appel lan t w it h r espec t t o the T rav is County of

fense w as false an d t h a t coun sel shou ld have taken the case to trial, appel lan t has not show n tha t t he factfind er w oul d hav e found hi m not g uil ty of that off ense, t h u s p re v ent ing the Nuece s Count y Distri ct Atto rney’s Of

f ice f rom u sing the of

fense in
su p p o rtof the i nst ant mot ion to re v oke. F urther more, as st ated in is sue one, appel lan t ple aded t ru e to the all eg ati on that he “fai led to enroll in the Fel ony Vi cti m Impact Panel by8

September

30, 2007, as direct ed by ” his co mmunity -s uper v is ion off ic er
. This al leg ati on alon e wa s s u f

f ic ie nt to supp ort the trial court’s order on th e mo tion to rev oke. Thu s, app ellant has f ailed to “ show tha t ‘there is a reaso nab le prob ability tha t, but for coun sel’s unp rof ession al errors, the resu lt of the pro ceed ing w ould have been dif feren t.’” Id . at 330 (qu o ti n g Ex par

te Chandler

, 182 S.W .3d a t 354 ). I ss ue tw o i s o v er ru led

.

III . C oncl usi on W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
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 1 2th d ay

of Ma rc h, 20 09.