NO. 07-08 -049 5-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

14, 2010

_________

_________

_________

___ PETERH ELLM UTH EGG ER T, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 26 6 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF E RAT H CO UNT Y; NO. CR1212 2; HON. DAVID CLEV ELA ND, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. App ell a n tP ete r Hellmuth Egg ert app eals his con v iction for bribery. Th rough six is sues , he cont ends that 1) the spec ial prosec utor commi tted prosec utor ial mis condu ct, 2) the S tate prosec uted an offense outs ide the jur is dicti onal bounda ri es of the i ndi ctment , 3) his ri g ht to a speed y tr ial w as v iol ated, 4) the ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent an d 5)h e rec ei v ed i ne ffecti v e as s i s ta nc e of c ou ns el
. W e affi r m.2 Back ground Jas on C ashon , an ass is tant dis tr ict attor ney w it h Erath Cou nty , tes ti fied that he was handl ing a c ri minal ca se ag ain st an i ndi v idu al by the nam e o f

M a rco s Gal lardo w ho ev entual ly

pl ed g uil ty

and w as g ra nted deferred adjudi cat ion
. Cas hon met w it h appel lan t w ho had adv is ed hi m thatGal lardo was the s ubj ectof an IN S h o ld i n S a n Ant oni o and appel lan t was attempting to keep Gal lardo from b ein g depor ted. Appel lan t adv is ed Cas hon he w as not a n att or ney but w as tr

y ing to hel p Ga lla rd o a s a fri end. C ashon tes ti fied th at he woul d notbe a ble to hel p appel lan t and that he lat er l ear ned app ell ant h ad f iled a pe tition fo r a w rit of hab eas co rpus for Gallardo base d on newl y discovered evi den ce in another

co urt. This peti ti on was deni ed, and appell ant f il ed an appeal from t he deni al in the E ast lan d C our

t of Appea ls
. W hil e the appeal pended , C ashon contacted Off ic er Jo e Hut son, a Tex as Ran g er , reg ardin g an inv est ig ati on into w hether appell ant had c ontacted the v ictim in the Gallardo ca se in supp ort of his habe as pe titi on. Based on Hutso n’s inv est ig ati on, a ppel lan t was ind icted b y the g ra nd j ur

y . Leroy Gai tan, a const abl e in Erat h County , t est ified thathe h ad been co ntacted b y appel lan t i n re ferenc e to Gal lardo. Fur ther more, he tes ti fied that he met w it h appel lan t at appel lan t’ s o ff ic e w here the di sc uss ion ce ntered on prev ent ing Gal lardo from b ein g d e p o rt e d
. Ap p e ll a n ta d vis e d G a it a n t h a to n e wa y t o p re ve n td e p o rt a t i o n wa s t o h a ve someone tal k t o the v icti m’s mother to conv inc e her

to drop th e c harg es. An other i nv olv ed Gaita n signing a lette r to the T exas Boa rd of Pardo ns and Parole s, Executiv e Cleme ncy Sect ion , i n Aus ti n, w herein Gai tan woul d v ouch for Ga ll ardo’ s c haract er .3

W hil e tal ki ng w it h appel lan t, the s ubj ectca me up t hat G ait an was r unni ng for cons tabl e, an el ect ed office. Subs eq uentl y , a p pel lan t req uest ed Ga it an to sp eak to t he mother of the v icti m in Gal lardo’ s cas e. Gai tan t est ified thati f he saw her he woul d l et he r know to come a nd ta lk

w it h appel lan t. Thereafter, se v eral phone c all s e nsued w it h appel lan t as ki ng Gai tan i f he had t alk ed to the mother
. The topi c o f a fundrai ser for G ait an w as als o broache d. Fi nal ly , G ait an met w it h a g entl eman re commended by appel lan t t o ass is t i n a campai g n f undrais er in Proctor , Comanc he County , Texa s. Appel lan t app eared to Ga itan p rior to th e actu al me eting and w rote him a check in the amo untof $10 0 for his campai g n. He als o hande d Gai tan a folder thatcontai ned fals e af

fidav it s p re pared for the signatures of

the victim in Gallardo’s case and her mo the r. Acc ordin g to Gai tan, appel lan t s tated se v eral ti mes t hat the c heck w as not a br ibe bu tt h a th e t h a n k e d h i m fo r h e l p i n g o u tw i t h t a l k i n g t o t h e v i ct i m’ s m o t h e r . F u rt h e rmore, app ellanttold Gaita n tha t it was u rg entt hatt he false af f idavits be signed so h e cou ld f ile the m wi th do cum ent s he plan ned on filing in court. Accordin g to Gaitan, app ellant told h im tha t Gallardo had f und s av ailable to Gaita n, th e v ictim, an d he r moth er. App ellantalso adv is ed Ga it an th at t here was a pla ce av ail abl e to him for his fundrai ser in ex chang e for hel pin g hi m. G ait an beg an to feel uneas y about the si tuati on and deci ded notto cas h the c he c k
. S ub s eq ue nt l y , he c on ti nu ed t o receive ph on e c al l s from a pp el l an t ath i s h om e during w hich calls app ellant assure d him f und s w ere av ailable for both him an d the v ictim’s mother
.4

Gai tan e v entual ly

met w it h the v icti m’s mother and adv is ed her

thatappel lan t w anted to t alk

w it h her

but he di d notg iv e he r the aff ida v it s. Ins tead, he t ur ned t he aff ida v it s o v er

to the Texas Ran g ers. Joe Hut son, of the Tex as Rang ers, tes ti fied that he ass is ts other l aw enforc ement ag enci es and prosec utor ’s off ic es w it h c ri minal i nv est iga ti ons. H e was cont act ed by the Di str ict Attor ney ’s off ic e in Erath Cou nty conc er nin g appel lan t. Base d on his i nv est ig ati on, he bel iev ed appe ll ant h ad offered money i n ex chang e for the s ig ned affidav it s. App ellanttestif ied th at he never to ld Gaita n tha t the re were f und s av ailable to him or to the v icti m’s mother
. Appel lan t deni ed offer ing any benefits to Gai tan in ex chang e for his obta ini ng si g natures on th e aff ida v it s. The j ur y co nv icted a ppel lan t of br ibe ry . Issu e On e -

Pr osec ut or ial Mi scon du ct Appel lan t c omplai ns in his first is sue of pro se cutori al mis condu ct based on t he follo w ing a rgu m e n ts: 1)the prosec utor had nev er

att ended l aw

sc hool ac cordin g to the T exas State Bar, 2) the p rosecu tor of fered not to prosecu te Ga itan i n e xc h a n ge fo r his tes ti mony , 3)the prosec utor fail ed to electw hic h theory the Stat e w as g oin g to the j ur y on unti l after the S tate re ste d, 4)the ev ide nce shows t hat t he th eor y th e State el ect ed occ ur re d i n C omanche Cou nty and not E ra th C ounty

and the p rose cu to r knew thi s, and 5 ) v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y t h e p ro s e c u t o r

i n c l o s i n g a rg u m e n t s w e re p rej u d i c i a l
. W e overrule the issue for several reaso ns. Fi rs t, w hil e appel lan t c it e s var iou s i nst ances of condu ct under tak en by

the prose cuto r, he provides no au tho rity ill ustrat ing or explanat ion de v el o p in g how those instan ces evince improp riety . W hy referring to appe llant as “this guy ” or using the phrase5

“d on’ t do thi s s huck

and ji v e s tuff” transg re ss ed ac cept abl e bound ar ies w as le ft to ou r ima gination. Instea d, th e sum and subst ance of app ellant ’s discou rse inv olved referen ce t o la u d a b le p o li c ie s a n d co n c e p t s re ga rd in g t h e n e e d fo r p ro s e c u t o rs t o a ctwit h p ro p ri e ty. But , again, ho w

those conce pts ap plied to the pro secut or’s actions o r i ll u s t ra ted those act ion s t o be improper

w ent u nmenti oned. At best , app ell ant merely conc lud ed th at t he prosec utor

eng ag ed i n mi sc onduct. Gi v en th is , we c annot say that appell ant compl ied w it h Tex as Rul e of

Appell ate Pro cedure 38.1 and adeq uatel y bri efed his co mplai nts
. Thus, they were wa ived. Vasq uez v. Sta te , 2 2 S
. W
. 3 d 2 8 , 3 1 ( Te x . A p p . –A ma r i l l o 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t .) (h old ing thatthe failu re to dev elo p arg ument an d c it e to per ti nent author ity

w as ina deq uate br iefin g w hic h resul ted i n the w aiv ing of thos e i ss ues)
. W e fu rt h e r n o t e t h a t v a r i o u s o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s p ro t e s t a t i o n s w e re s i mp l y w rong . For insta nce, and cont ra ry to the i nsi nuati ons other w is e, prosec utors may promis e notto prosec ute w it ness es in ex chang e for thei r tes ti mony . Gr ahamv. Sta te , 994 S.W .2d 6 51, 653- 54 ( T e x. Crim. Ap p. 19 99)
. So t oo di d ev ide nce of rec ord i ndi cat e tha t acts under tak en by appel lan t oc cur re d in both Erath and Comanc he Counti es; so, th e al leg ati on t h a tt h e p ro s e c u t o r o p t e d t o p ro s e c u t e a p p e ll a n tin a n im p ro p e r c o u n ty ( i. e. Erath) w as and is bas ele ss . An d , a s fo r th e al le gat io n th a t itwa s im p ro p e r fo r th e p ro se cu to r to st a te atclo sin g: “[ a]nd I s ubmitto y ou th e c hoi ces in t h is ca se are c lea r, ei ther [app ell ant] is co rrect , and Jas on C ashon i s a liar , Lee Roy Gaitan is a liar , Joe Huts on is a lia r, and I’ m a lia r . . . ,” w e not e tha t app ell ant h ad te sti fied th at th e p ro se cut or w as a l iar
. Thus, the p ro sec utor w as enti tl ed to m enti on that bi t of ev ide nce. See W esbr ook v. State , 29 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 15V e n u e m a yb e e s ta b l i s h e d b yd i re c t o r c i rc u m s ta n ti a l e v i d e n c e , B la c kv . S ta te , 645 S. W
. 2d 7 89, 790 1 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 3) , and a j ur ym aym ake r easona bl e i nf er ences f r om t he ev i dence t o deci de t he i ssue o f v e n u e . E d w a rd s v . S ta te , 97 S. W
. 3d 2 79, 285 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h D i st
. ] 2003, pet
. r ef ' d)
. W e v i ew al l the ev i dence i n t he l i ght m ost f av or abl e t o t he v er di ct and t hen det er m i ne whet hera r at i onal t r i erof f act c o u l d h a v e f o u n d ve n u e w a s p ro p e r b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . S e e H o o p e r v . S ta te , 214 S. W
. 3d 9 , 1 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); T EX .C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t
. 13. 17 ( Ver non 2005)
. T he j ur y , as t he t r i erof fa c t, i s th e s o l e ju d g e o f t h e c re d i b i l i tyo f w i tn e s s e s . S e e M o re n o v . S ta te , 7 5 5 S .W .2 d 8 6 6 , 8 6 7 ( T e x . C r im
. A p p .1 9 8 8 ). T h e ju ry c h o o s e s w h e th e r o r n o t to b e l i e v e a l l o r p a rt o f a w i tn e s s 's te s ti m o n y . S e e id
. W e do not eng age i n a second ev al uat i on o ft he wei ght and cr edi bi l i t yof t he e v i dence. M u n i

z v . S ta te , 851 S. W
. 2d 2 3 8 , 2 4 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); H a rr is v . S ta te , 164 S
. W
. 3d 775, 784 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st
. ] 200 5, pet
. r ef ' d)
. T hus, i f t her e i s ev i dence est abl i shi ng v enue by a pr epond er ance, we ar e no t aut hor i z ed t o r ev er se th e ju d g m e n t o n s u ff i c i e n c yo f th e e v i d e n c e g ro u n d s . S e e B la c kv . S ta te , 645 S. W
. 2d at 791. Fur t her m or e, i t i s wel l set t l ed t hat t he " on o rabo ut " l angua ge of an i ndi ct m ent al l ows t he St at e t o pr ov e a dat e ot hert han t he o ne a l l eged as l ong as t he d ate pr ov en i s ant er i ort o t he p r esent m ent of t he i ndi ct m ent and wi t hi n t he s ta tu to ry l i m i ta ti o n p e rio d
. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . a rt. 2 1 .0 2 (6 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 9 ); W rig h t v . S ta te , 28 S .W .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 6 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)( re cog niz ing thata prosec utor may di sc uss t he ev ide nce and answer oppos ing arg uments dur ing hi s s ummatio n)
. Iss ue Two - Venue Appel lan t next c ontends thathe was prosec uted in Erath C ounty w hen t he actual offense occ ur re d i n C omanche Cou nty
. This al leg edl y i s so becaus e Gaita n testi fied th at itw as dur ing hi s meet ing in Comanche County that appel lan t al leg edl y sa id that addi ti onal funds w ere av ail abl e to him. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. 1 W h i l e t h e re i s e v i d e n c e t h a t s o me e v e n t s o c c u r re d i n C o ma n c h e C o u n ty , G ait an testif ie d t hathe received several phon e calls to his hom e in Erath Count y . Th ose ca lls conce rned the af

f idavits and the of

fer of add itio n a l f und s. Th us, an d as previously menti oned, there was ev ide nce that cr imi nal co nductunder ly ing the prosec uti on oc cur re d in both count ies
. So, prosec uti ng the matter i n Erath C ounty

w as appropr iat e.7 Issu e T hr ee - Sp eedy T rial Appel lan t c ontends thathi s cons ti tuti onal rig hts w ere v iol ated w hen he w as deni ed a s peedy

tr ial
. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Th e rig ht to a spee dy trial enco mp asses n ot on ly the m ere rig ht to spee d bu t also to a n " o rd e rly e xpe d it io n " o f t h e ch a rge . United S tates v. M ar ion , 404 U .S. 307, 313, 92 S.C t. 455, 459- 60, 3 0 L.E d.2d 468 ( 1971) ; State v . Munoz , 9 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 1 (T e x. Cr im. App.19 99)
. And, in deter mini ng w hether both w ere afforded t he ac cus ed, t he U nit ed Stat es Supreme C our

t ann ounce d i n B a r

k e r v . Wingo , 407 U .S. 514, 92 S. Ct . 218 2, 33 L.Ed. 2d 101 (1 972) , t hatfour i ndi ci a mustbe b ala nced. They co nsi st of the 1)l eng th of the delay , 2) reason for t he del ay , 3)ti me at w hic h the defendant ass erted t he r ig ht, and 4) preju dic e, if any , s uffered by the defendant due to the d ela y . Bar ker v. Wingo , 407 U .S. at 53 0, 92 S .C t. a t 2 1 92, 3 3 L.E d.2d at 11 6- 17; Johns on v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 7 70, 7 71 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7). Inhe rent in fa ctors tw o and three is an assessm ent of the cond uct of both t he St ate a nd defendant. State v . Munoz , 9 9 1 S. W .2 d at8 2 1 (cit in g Bar ker , 407 U
. S
. a t5 3 0 , 9 2 S
. C t
. a t2 1 9 2 , 3 3 L
. E d
. 2 d a t1 1 8 )
. F u rt h e r mo re , w h i l e " [ n]o si ng le . . . factor i s a 'neces sar

y or suff ic ien t condi ti on to the findi ng ' of a speedy tr ial v iol ati on," State v. Munoz , 991 S .W .2d a t 821 ; Bar ker v. Wingo , 407 U .S. at 53 3, 92 S.C t. at 21 93, 3 3 L.E d.2 d at 11 8, it is necessa ry thatthe cou rt first f ind an und ue d elay. Simply put , if there is no s uch del ay , t hen t here i s n o reason to address the re maini ng i ndi ci a. N ext, in anal yz ing the tr ial cour t' s d eci si on, t he rev iew ing co urt bal ances the four fac tors anew . Johns on v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d at 771 . Th at is, w hile the trial court's re sol uti on of t he his tor ic al facts par ti cul ar to the cas e is enti tl ed to ou r deferenc e, State v.8

Munoz , 9 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d a t8 2 1 , a p p li c a t io n o f t h o s e fa ct s t o t h e fo u r i n d ic ia it e m i z e d a b o ve involv es a q uest ion of law
. Johns on v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d at 771. A nd, b ein g a q uest ion o f la w, itu n d e rg o e s re vie w de nov o. State v

. Munoz , 991 S.W .2d a t 821 ; Johns on v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d at 771 . W e no w turn to th e circumst ance s at bar. a. Length of D elay T he d elay here excee d ed th ree years. Giv en th at th e sevente en-m ont h lapse ex is tent in Munoz

w as deemed s uff ic ien tl y prejudic ial to tr ig g er

co nsi derati on of the re m a in in g Bar

ker facto rs, w e con clude thatthe spa n be fore us do es so as w ell. b. Rea son for

the Del ay The ap p e lla n t o n ce m o ved fo r co n ti n u a n ce w h ich un d o u b te d ly po st p o n e d resol uti on o f t h e ca u s e t o so m e e xt e n t
. Fu rt h e r m o r e , a p p e ll a n t ’s co u n s e l re qu e s t e d t o wit h d ra w, w hic h req uestw as deni ed on Ma rc h 31, 2008. Later , new defense coun sel substi tuted for the o ld on M ay 2, 2008. The latter als o filed the aforementi oned moti on for c onti nuanc e. Ev entual ly , t ri al w as hel d on Oct ober 26, 200 8 , o ver si x

months after

su bst it uti on of couns el. Y et, that fact di d notthen , and does not now , ex pla in why tr ial w as del ay ed as itw as. N or

co uld the onus be pl aced upon t he Stat e for ithad cons is tentl y announ ced that itw as re ady

to proceed . Fur

ther more, w e do not ac ceptthe appel lan t' s i nsi nuati on th at t he Stat e s houl d be charg ed w it h the del ay because ithad the obli g ati on to hav e i ts all eg ati ons tried. Adm itted ly , the State is th e p a rt y s eekin g to con v ict app ellant . As such, it mu st ti mely prepare for tr ial . Y et, prepar ing its cas e for tri al is the onl y

as pectof the p ro ceedi ng ov er w hic h i t has co ntrol. I t cannot le g all y or th eoreti cal ly

dete rmi ne w hen t ri al w il l be had;A p p e ll a n t's m o tio n w a s fr a m e d a s a m o tio n to d is m is s . T h is fa c t p o t e n tia ll y w e a k e n s a p p e ll a n t's 2 c a s e , a s "a d i s m i s s a l i n s te a d o f a s p e e d ytri a l w e a k e n s [a s p e e d ytri a l ] c l a i m b e c a u s e it s h o w s a d e s i re to h a v e n o tri a l i n s te a d o f a s p e e d ytri a l ." P a rk e rs o n v . S ta te , 942 S. W
. 2d 7 89, 791 ( T ex. App. –For t W or t h 19 97, no p et
. )
. But " [ e] ach ca se m ust t ur n on i t s own f act s, and t he par t i cul arre l i efa def endan t seek s i s butone fa c t t o c o n s i d e r." P h i lli p s v . S ta te , 65 0 S
. W
. 2d 39 6, 40 1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 83 ). 9 that tas k fal ls w it hin the ra ther ex cl usi v e bai li w ic k o f the tri al ju dg e. Thus, w e c annot say that thi s fact or

w eig hs heav il y

i n fav or of appel lan t. c. Ass er ti on of Righ t T he fact th at ap pellan t inv oked the rightt o a s p e e d y trial i n July of 200 7 is und is p u t e d . Appe llant w as arreste d April 4, 20 05, so over tw o y ears after his arrest appel lan t asser

ted h is r ig ht t o a s peedy tr ial
. The fail ure to invoke the r ig ht ea rl ier does 2 notamo untto w aiver. d. Preju dice The la st factor

w e address i s p re

judic e . Ac cordin g to precede nt, itmustbe ass ess ed w it h an ey e towards the int erest s w hic h a speed y tr ial w as desi g ned t o protect. State v . Munoz , 9 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d a t8 2 6
. T h o s e i n t e re s t s c o n s is to f 1 ) p re ve n t in g o p p re s s ive pretr ial i ncarcerati on, 2 ) mini miz ing the anx iety and conc er n of t he ac cus ed, a nd 3)l imi ti ng the c hance thatthe acc used' s d efense w ill b e i m pai re d. Id . Of these indicia, the last is most impor

tant si nce the i nabi li ty

to adeq uatel y defend one' s s elf affect s t he fair ness of the enti re syste m. Id. An d, w hil e uns aid by mostco urts, it is nonethe les s a nec ess ity thatthe pr ej u d i c e i n q u e s t i o n e ma n a t e fro m t h e d e l a y . I n o t h e r w o rd s , t h e re mu s t be a caus al re lat ion shi p betw een t he two. If thi s was not s o, t hen l o gica lly t h e factor woul d be of no impor tanc e. Ander

son v. State, 8 S.W .3d 3 87, 3 92 (Te x . App .–A ma rill o 19 99, pet. ref’d).10

W it h the foregoin g i n min d, we tur n to the record before us and immedi atel y note that appel lan t was not i ncarcerated w hil e await ing adj udi cat ion
. In fact , he bonded out o f jai l on th e s ame day

he w as arrest ed. And, thoug h appel lan t c ontends before us that the del ay “ made i t i mposs ibl e for [hi m] to obtai n proper i nv est ig ati on and the l ocat ing of an ex per t,” he fails to ex pla in how his inv est ig ati on w as impede d or w hat e x per

t was desi re d but c oul d notbe obtai ned. Nor does he ex pla in about w hat t he ex per t woul d hav e tes ti fied. T his is of im port beca use to show preju dice cause d by lost testim ony, a n app ellantmust est abl is h tha t t he w it nes s w as unav ail abl e at the t ime of tri al, thatthe tes ti mony of the suppo sed ex per

t was re lev a n t a n d m a te ri al to t he defense, and that due di li g ence w as us ed t o l oc at e hi m. Swi sher v. Sta te , 544 S .W .2d 379 , 382 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p.1 976 ); Par ker son v. State , 942 S.W .2 d 7 8 9 , 7 92 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W or th 19 97, n o pet .)
. Ag ain , app ellantfailed in th at regard. So, we canno t say tha t the last facto r bode s in his fa v or. In s um, and upon con sid e rin g the ev ide nce of rec ord i n rela ti on to the Bar ker ele ments, w e c annot say thatappel lan t was deni ed a speed y tr ial
. Iss ues Four and Five - Sufficiency of t he Evidenceto Support Co nvic tion In hi s four

th and fifth is sues , appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t hi s c onv icti on bec ause 1) i t fail ed to sh ow thathe o ffered anyc on s i de rat i on t o Ga i ta n to i nfl ue nc e hi m t o v i ol at e a du ty o f hi s p os i ti on a s a p eace off ic er and 2) the false aff ida v it s c oul d nothav e af fected t he out come o f Gall ardo’ s c ri minal cas e. The is sues are ov er ru led
. W e re v i e w

c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e s u ffi c i e n cy o f t h e e v i d e n c e u n d e r t h e s t a ndards dis cus sed in Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U .S. 307, 99 S.Ct . 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 979) and11

W ats on v . St ate, 204 S.W .3d 404 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). Next, a person co mm its bribery “if he inten tiona lly

or know ingly

of fers, confers, or agrees to con fer o n ano the r, o r solicits, accep ts, or agree s t o a c ceptf rom a not her: . . . (3) any ben ef it as conside ration for a v iolation of

a duty impose d by l aw on a pub lic servant or p arty of f icial.” T EX . P EN AL C ODE §36.02(a )(3)( Ver non 200 3)
. Reg ardin g the matter of Gai tan b ein g a pu bli c s er v ant o r of f icial, app ellantsay s thatthere is no e v iden ce “Gaitan rep resen ted himse lf to be a pea ce off ic er w hen he met w it h [t he v icti m’s mother ] or thatsh e had any ide a that he was at t hat time a pea ce of

f icer.” Th e b ribery

statu te says nothin g w hich cou ld lead one to logically conc lud e tha t t he v icti m’s mother had to k now

Gai tan was a peac e off ic er . Appel lan t al so cont ends that becau se Gai tan was w or ki ng as a “ sec ur ity g uard” at a l ocal co ll eg e he w as not a peac e off ic er as co ntempl ated by

the sta tute. A cc o rd in g to the record th ou g h, Ga i ta n w as a c am pu s po l i c e offi c er w i th Tar l et on St at e U ni v ers i ty in Erath C o u n ty
. Bei ng a c ampus off ic er , he w as author iz ed to enforce traf f ic laws, ma ke w ar ra ntl ess ar re sts for o ffenses co mmitt ed i n hi s p re senc e, an d oth er w is e c ar ry

out the duti es of a peac e off ic er any w here i n the county

or counti es in w hic h the co mmiss ion ing ins ti tuti on ow ns or

co ntrols proper

ty
. T EX . E DUC . C OD E A NN . §51 .20 3 (Verno n 20 06). T his is so me ev ide nce upon w hic h a ra ti onal jur y could conc lud e bey ond reas onabl e doubtthat Gai tan was a peac e off ic er for p ur poses of the b ri ber y st atute
. Appel lan t furt her

co ntends thathe d id not a sk Gai tan t o do anythi ng i n c onnecti on w ith a du ty imp osed bylaw upo n him in his capacity as a public servant. Th at pe ace off ic ers a re req uired by l aw to preser

v e the peac e and suppress cr ime is beyond dou bt. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 2.13( a) & ( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 5) ( so re q uir ing ). That ex ecut ing a false aff ida v itm ay consti tute a cri me i s a ls o c lea r. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN .12

§37.02( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 3) ( sta ti ng thata pe rs on c ommits an o ffense if, w ith intentto decei v e and w it h k now led g e of the sta tement’ s mean ing , he makes a fa lse state ment under oath or swears to the truth of

a false sta tement prev iou sl y m ade and the sta tement is req uired or

auth or iz ed by

l aw to be made under

oath ); Ma rt

in v. State , 896 S.W .2d 3 36, 338- 40 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1995, no pet .) ( dis cus si ng w hat cons ti tutes the cr ime of per jur y ). So , G ait an, a peac e off ic er charg ed w it h the duty to suppress cr ime, was ef fectively solicited by appe llant to assist a not her to engage in perjury. T hat , at th e v ery least, is more tha n som e evidence to af ford a ration al jury to conclude , beyond reason able dou bt, th at ap pellan t engaged in bribe ry. An d, such a f inding would not be man ifestly unj ustg iv en th e tot ali ty of the e v ide nce. Next, ap p ellantconte nds th at th e evidence w as insuf f icient to supp ort bribery becau se the false aff ida v it s i n q uest ion co uld not be us ed to affectthe outc ome of a j udi ci al proceed ing
. Ho wever, t he ac cus ati on w hic h the Sta te el ect ed to su bmitto the j ur y and w hich w as sub mitt ed sa id not hing of atte mp ting to inf lue n c e a j udicial proce edin g. So, it does not matter

w hether the Stat e prov ed th at t he doc uments co uld hav e been so used. Issu e Si x - In ef fe ct ive A ssist

ance App ellant f inally asserts that he w as de nied the ef fective assistance of

coun sel. Th is all eg edl y w as so becau se tr ial co unsel 1) fail ed to objectto infla mmator y st atements made by the prosec uti ng att or ney w hic h i ncl ude d h is o p ini ons of appell ant’ s g uil t, 2) fail ed to anti ci pate that Ga it an woul d c hang e hi s t est imony , 3)had a duty to inv est ig ate a nd not del eg ate h is i nv est ig ati on to an i nv est ig ator , 4)fail ed to subpoena the v icti m’s mother w ho c o u l d re f u t e G a i t a n ’ s t e s t i m o n y a n d 5 ) fa i l e d t o p re p a re a p p e l l a n tt o t e s t i f y a tt r i a l
. W e overrule the issue for the followi ng reasons.13

Fi rs t, appel lan t had the obl ig ati o n t o prov e tha t c ounse l w as defici ent a nd th at t he defici ency

ca used preju dic e. Str

ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U. S. 668, 104 S.C t. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1 984) ; Sm it h v . St ate, 286 S. W .3d 3 33, 3 42 (T e x. Crim
. App. 2009)
. W it h re g ard to the l atter

el ement, he s impl y

di sc uss ed as pect s o f the l aw and then suggest[ed] thatthe to tality of cou nsel’s const itution ally def icient pe rforma nce preju dic ed hi s d efense and that couns el’ s er ro rs w ere so ser iou s that he was act ual ly under mini ng the proper functi oni ng of the adv ersar ial proces s t o the extent that the t ria l canno t be re li ed on as hav ing produce d j ustresul ts and that but for

M r. M or ri s’ per

formance the resul t woul d hav e been different. No attemptw as made to ex pla in or es tabl is h w hy

that wou ld b e so. M aki ng a mi sta ke, ass uming one w as made, do es not ips o fac tocreate p rejudice . Nor w ill w e assu me thatit does. Ap pel lan t had to est abl is h preju dic e, an d he did not. Secon d, ap pellan t’s factu al a ll e gations regarding counse l’s fa ilure to ad equate ly inv est ig ate a nd prepare for tr ial and subpo ena w it ness es cont ain no ci tati on to the appel lat e record. Ind eed , the y

are me rely

allegations ut tered by app ellantin his brief , and as such are not ev ide nce w hic h w e can cons ide r. Jones v. Sta te, 4 7 8 S
. W
. 2 d 9 3 7 , 9 3 8 f n . 1 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1972) ; Rob er tso n v . St ate , 168 Tex . C ri m. 35, 322 S.W .2d 6 20, 6 22 ( 1959) (sta ti n g t h a t all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n a b ri ef are not e v ide nce)
. Nor are the co pie s o f pur p orted e mail s from cou nsel su sc epti ble to cons ide ra ti on s impl y bec ause appel lan t attac hed t hem to his br ief. See Ander son v. State , 445 S.W .2d 7 52, 754 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 196 9) (holding thatmere ly atta ching docu me nts to a brief d oes notm ake th em ev iden ce). Fi nal ly , w it hhol din g obj ect ion to cl osi ng arg ument i s freq uentl y a matter of l eg it imat e tr ial st ra teg y . H u b b a r

d v . S ta te , 7 7 0 S .W .2d 31, 45 (Tex. App. –Dallas 19 89, pet. ref'd). Thus, ev ide nce of couns el' s s trateg y , if any , was and i s c ru ci al to de ter mini ng w hether he14

w as ine ffect iv e. Y et, nothi ng of re cord ind ic ates w hy couns el w it hhel d c omplai nt ab out t he arg ument ap pel lan t dee med obj ect ion abl e. W it hout suc h ev ide nce, w e cannot say that the re cord before us su ff ic ien tl y rebuts the strong presumpt ion thatco unsel ex erci sed re asona bly

professi onal j udg ment. Thom pson v. State , 9 S
. W
. 3 d 8 0 8 ( Te x . C ri m. App. 199 9). Hav ing ov er ru le each is sue, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.