See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22

. 011 ( Ver non Supp. 200 7)

. I n t r i al cour t cause num ber06- 100 1 ( appel l at e cau se nu m ber13- 07 -28 4-C R ), app el l ant pl eaded gui l t y t o t he se cond- degr ee f el ony off ense of sexual assau l t of

J. J. , a chi l d y ounge r t han sev ent een y ear s of age . See i d. § 22. 021 ( Ver non Supp. 200 7)

. I n t r i al cour t cause num ber06- 101 ( appel l at e cau se nu m ber 2 13- 07- 285- C R ) , app el l ant pl eaded gui l t y t o t he f i r st
- degr ee f el ony off ense ofagg r av at ed s ex ua l assaul t of



### NUM BERS 13-0 7-28 4-CR & 13-07-2 85-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
CH A LON W

A TK INS, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 30t h Dist rict C ou rt o f Matago rda Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z
A p p e l l a n t , C h a l o n W a t k i n s , e n t e re d a n “ o p e n ” p l e a o f g u i l t y t o s e x u a l a s s a u l to f a child and agg rav ate d sexual assau lt of a child. A jury

impo sed a pun ishm entof ten years’ 1 2R

. V. , a chi l d y ounge r t han f our t een y ear s of age . A p p e l l a n t’ s m o th e r, R .V .’ s m o th e r, a n d s e v e ra l o th e r a d u l ts l i v i n g i n th e h o u s e w e re c h a rg e d w i th 3 bei ng a war e of

t he se xual assau l t s and f ai l i ng t o r epor t orpr ev ent t he o ff enses. 2 imp risonm enta nd a $5, 000 f ine for the se x ual assa ult of a child of

fense and thirty

y ears’ impr is onment a nd a $5,000 fine for the o ffense o f a ggra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c hil d. A mo tion for new trial w as f iled in each cause , alleging inef fective assistance of

coun sel. Fol low ing a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied both moti ons. I n a s ing le is sue, appel lan t cont ends he recei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el. W e aff ir m. Back ground At a ppel lan t’ s p uni shmenthear ing , J.J

. tes ti fied that w hen s he w as fifteen y ears o ld, appel lan t g av e her

co cai ne and had conse nsual sex w it h her. J.J. bec ame preg nant and had a ppel l an t’ s c hi l d. R .V

. te s ti fi ed t ha t w he n s he w as tw el v e, s he a nd h er b roth er, mo the r, and h er m o t her’s boyf riend m oved into th e ho use where app ellantliv ed wi th his mother and fiv e or

si x othe r adul ts. R .V. tes ti fied that she beg an hav ing sex w it h appel lan t 3
w hen s he w as tw elv e. She mar ri ed appe ll ant a t t hir teen, w h e n s h e w as eig ht mont hs preg nant w it h hi s b aby

. As a re sul t of t he i nv est ig ati on of thes e offenses , app ell ant w as a lso ch a rge d in co n n e ct io n w it h ha ving a se xua l re la ti o n s h ip w it h an o th e r un d e r-a ge female w ho l iv ed i n the hous e, A .V. ( R. V.’ s cous in) , w ho w as approx imat ely fourt een atthe ti me. The charg e reg ardin g A.V . remaine d pendi ng at the t ime of appell ant’ s p uni shment hear ing

. Appel lan t c ontends he w as deni ed effectiv e a s s i s t ance of couns el at hi s p uni shment hear ing

. Spe cifical ly , he cont ends his co unsel w as ine ffect iv e for faili ng to (1 ) int er v iew
more potent ial w it ness es, (2 ) file pre- tr ial moti ons, ( 3) retai n an ex per t t o tes ti fy re g ardin gSt r i ckland v. W ashi

ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ); S a li n a s v . S ta te , 163 S

. W

. 3d 7 34, 740 ( T ex. 4 C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ).

Ex part e Moody , 99 1 S

. W

. 2d 85 6, 85 7-5 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ). 5
Th o m p s o n v . S ta te , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 G a rc ia v . S ta te , 5 7 S .W .3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). 7 Id

. 8 3 app ellant ’s diagnosis of bipola r and at ten tion d ef icit hy pera ctiv ity disorders; an d (4) object to t he s entenc es impos ed by the jur y as cr uel and unusu al. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw T o prove inef

fective assistance of

coun sel, ap pellan t mu st dem onst rate th at: ( 1) his
couns e l’ s p er

formance w as defici ent b ecaus e i t fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of
reaso nab lene ss; and (2) there w as a reaso nab le proba bility that , butfor coun sel's errors, the resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. I n the co ntext of a g uil ty pl ea, 4 appel lan t sat is fies the s econd prong of the Str ickl and t est if h e shows th ere is a reason able prob ability tha t butfor coun sel’s errors, he w ould not have plea ded guilty , but rathe r w ould have insisted on going to trial. 5 There is a strong presu mpti on that couns el’ s c onduc t fell w it hin the w ide rang e of
reaso nab le profession al assistan ce, and w e w ill susta in allegation s of inef fectiveness on ly if they are fir mly

founded i n the record. W e al so ind ulg e a s trong presumpt ion that 6
c o u n s e l ’ s a c t i o n s w e re mo t i v a t e d b y s o u n d t r i a l s t ra t e g y , a n d w e w i l l n o t c o n cl ude t he
a c t io n wa s d e f ic ie n tu n le s s itwa s so o u t ra ge o u s t h a tn o co m p e t e n ta t t o rn e y wo u ld h a ve eng ag ed i n such conduct. W e look to the total ity of the re present ati on and not to i sol ated 7 instan ces of

error or to on ly

a portion of

the pro ceed in gs . I n the ab sence of ev iden ce 8F re e m a n v . S ta te , 12 5 S

. W

. 3d 50 5, 50 6-0 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 03 ). 9
A n d e rs o n v . S ta te , 1 9 3 S .W .3 d 3 4 , 3 9 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , p e t. re f'd ). 10 S e e P e re z v . S ta te , 129 S

. W

. 3d 282, 288 (T ex. A pp. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 4, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng L e w is 11 v . S ta te , 91 1 S

. W

. 2d 1, 4-5 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ); B ro d d u s v . S ta te , 6 9 3 S .W .2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 0
- 6 1 ( T e x . C r im

. A p p . 1 9 8 5 )) ; M a rtin e z v . S ta te , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f'd ).

S e e Yo u n g v . S ta te , 8 S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 6
- 6 7 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Perez , 129 S. W

. 3d a t 288 12 ( ci t i ng M o n re a l

v . S ta te , 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 3 )) ; J o rd a n v . S ta te , 112 S. W

. 3d 3 45, 347 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 03 , pe t

. ref' d).

M artinez , 109 S. W

. 3d a t 803 ( hol di ng t hat r i ght t o appea l cl ai m of i neff ect i v e assi st ance ofcoun sel 13 al l egi ng t hat coun sel f ai l ed t o t i m el y conv ey pl ea n egot i at i ons a nd a dequa t el y i nfo rm d efe ndant of consequ ences ofpl eadi ng g ui l t y t o j ur y f or sent enci ng was wai v ed, beca use p l ea o fgui l t y to jury was i nd ep en de nt of a nd no t su pp ort ed by al l eg ed i ne ffec t i ve a s s i s t an c e o f co un s el cl ai m s ). 4 rega rd in g coun sel’s reason s for the ch allenged cond uct, th e record on direct app eal is simp ly und eveloped and cann ot ad equate ly ref lect the alleged failings of trial counse l. 9 W h e re , a s h e re , a m o t io n fo r n e w tr ia l a ll e ge s in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l, we mu st det ermin e w het her the trial court’s dete rmina tion o f the ine f fective assistance claim and den ial of the mot ion fo r new tr ial w ere c lea rl y

w ro ng and outs ide the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. 10 Beca use appel lan t pl ead e d guil ty w it hout the b enefit of a sent enci ng re commendat ion , he w aiv ed the rig ht to appeal any non-j ur is dicti onal defect s that occ ur re d before t he ent ry

of the p lea , ot her

than the v olu ntar ine ss of his pl ea. How ev er , i f the 11 jud g ment w as not rendered ind ependent ly of potent ial er ro r occ ur ri ng before entr y of the plea , app ellantmay appe al tha t error. 12 Al leg ati ons of i neffect iv e ass is tanc e of c ounse l may or may not hav e a directnex us w it h a d e f e n d a nt' s p lea of g uil ty

. A jud g ment of g uil t i s rendered i ndependen tl y of the 13 all eg ed er ro r (a nd th e al leg ed er ro r is therefore w aiv ed) w hen t he al leg ed g ro unds ofS e e id .; Jordan , 112 S. W

. 3d at 347 ( hol di ng t hat r i ght t o ap peal cl ai m of i neff ect i v e assi st ance of 14 counsel al l egi ng t hat coun sel had di squal i f y i ng co nf l i ct of i nt er est was wai v ed b ecause r ecor d di d no t show a p p e l l a n t w o u l d h a v e p l e a d e d n o t g u i l ty b u t fo r a l l e g e d c o n fli c t o f i n te re s t).

S e e G u i d ryv . S ta te , 177 S

. W

. 3d 90, 93- 94 ( T ex. A pp. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 2005, no pet

. ) (o p. on 15 r em and) ( ci t i ng Young , 8 S .W .3 d a t 6 6 7 ; M artinez , 10 9 S

. W

. 3d at 80 3). 5 in e f fe c t ive a s s is t a n c e a re n o tre la t e d t o t h e p le a o f gu il t y. 14 Here, ap pel lan t doe s n ot c lai m thathi s c ounse l' s a ll eg ed i neffectiven e ss had any bea ring on h is decision to plead g uilty or tha t he w ould have plea ded not guilty but for his
coun sel’s inef

fectiveness. A ppe llant’s com plaint s of inef fectiveness th at arguab ly 15
occ ur re d before the entr y of the p lea are the al leg ed f a ilu re s to i nter v iew more pot enti al
w itnesse s and f ile “pretrial motio ns.” App ellant doe s not iden tif y any pretrial mo tions h is
couns el shoul d hav e fil ed, n or does h e s ta te t h a t butfor c ounse l’ s fai lure to do s o, he
w oul d nothav e pl eaded g uil ty

. Si mil ar ly , app ell ant’ s t est imony at his moti on- for- new -t ri al hear ing di d not s u g g estthathe w oul d nothav e pl eaded g uil ty i f his co unsel had in t e rvi e we d a n d ca ll e d m o re wit n e s s e s t o t e s t ify a th is p u n is h m e n th e a ri n g. Ac c o rd in gl y, w e ho ld tha t app ellantw aived any r ig h tt o app eal his com plaintof inef fective assistance of co unse l reg ardi ng t he a l l eg ed fai l ures t o fi l e pret r i al mo ti on s a nd i nt er v i ew mo re w it ness es becau se the j udg ment of g u ilt w as re ndered i ndependen tl y of, and w as not suppo rt ed by , t he al leg ed i neffect iv eness of defense c ounse l. E ve n if a p p e ll a n t ’s gu il t y p le a h a d n o twa ive d h is ri gh tt o co m p la in o f in e f fe c t ive
a s s is t a n c e , we co n c lu d e h is c o m p la in t s a re wit h o u tm e ri t

. Ata p p e ll a n t ’s m o t io n -fo r- n e wtrial hearing, his coun sel testif ied th at he conta cted all the w itnesse s app ellantasked him to con tact. Counsel te stif ied th at in som e instan ces, w itnesse s a ppe llant ide ntif ied w ere notav ailable to testif

y ; in som e insta nces, w itnesse s w ere not called becau se the y w ereS e e Va ll e v . S ta te , 9 6 3 S .W .2 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 8 (T e x . A p p .– T e x a rk a n a 1 9 9 8 , p e t. re f’d ). 16 See St r

i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 ; Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2

. 17
W e a ls o n o te th a t a p p e lla n t’s c o u n s e l e lic ite d te s tim o n y a t t h e p u n is h m e n t h e a r in g r e g a r d in g 18 appel l ant ’ s di agnosi s as exper i enci ng m ani c dep r essi v e, bi pol ar , and A. D

. H

. D

. di sor der s. At t he m ot i on f or new t r i al hea r i ng, app el l ant ’ s coun sel was no t asked abo ut hi s f ai l ur e t o con t act an exper t r egar di ng appel l ant ’ s di sabi l i t i es. He was asked onl y whet herhe was aw ar e ofappel l ant ’ s di agnosi s as hav i ng b i pol ar and A. D

. H

. D

. cond i t i ons; coun sel st at ed h e was a war e of t he co ndi t i ons a nd t hat he pr esent ed t he i nf or m at i on t o t he j ur y at pun i shm ent. A s not ed, t he r ecor d con f i r m s t hat coun sel di d so. Counsel was al so asked w h e th e r a p p e l l a n t w a s c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tria l ; c o u n s e l s ta te d th a t i n h i s o p i n i o n , a p p e l l a n t w a s c o m p e te n t. 6 charg ed c o- defendants, and some w ere not call ed bec ause they had cr imi nal records. A tr ial co urt enj oy s b ro ad di sc re ti on to co nsi der the cre d ib ili ty

of the w it ness es at a moti on for new tri al hear ing and mayconsi der the int erest s and bi as of anyw it ness . I n addi ti on, 16 wh e n a p p e ll a n twa s a s k e d h o w te s t im o n y f ro m a n y o f t h e id e n t if ie d wit n e s s e s wo u ld h a ve chang ed th e outc ome, he tes ti fied onl y that they coul d hav e tes ti fied as to his “ charact er ,” and t hat s uch tes ti mony “ may be” or

“ mig ht ha v e” had an effect on the jur y . W e c oncl ude
a p p e l l a n tfai l e d to es t a b l i s h th e se c o n d p ro n g o f Str ickl and beca use he failed to show i n re a s o n a b le p ro b a b il it y t h a t , b u tfo r c o u n s e l’ s e rr o rs , t h e re s u lto f h is p ro c e e d in g wo u ld h a ve been di ff erent. 17 As to hi s c ounse l’ s fai lure to retai n an ex per t to testi fy reg ardin g appel lan t’ s b ipo lar and attenti on defic ithy peract iv ity di sorders, appel lan t tes ti fied that suc h i nformati on “ mig ht have” assisted the jury in its det ermin ation of his sente nce. He testif ied he did notask his
couns el to c ontac t a doct or to tes ti fy re g ardin g hi s d is abi li ti es. W e c annot say that 18
couns el’ s s uppos ed fail ure to re tai n an ex per t re g ardin g appel lan t’ s dis abi li ti es affect ed th e outc ome. The record does not reflectw hat s uch an ex per t’ s t est imony

w oul d hav e been. Thus, w e are unabl e to deter mine if any fail ure to employ suc h an ex per t w oul d hav e made a di ff erence in appel lan t’ s d eter minat ion to ple ad g uil ty or in the outc ome of his puni shmentS e e N u n e z v . S ta te , 1 1 0 S .W .3 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 2 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); M or al es v. 19 S ta te , 8 9 7 S .W .2 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 7 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 5 , p e t. re f’d ).

See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12. 33 ( Ver non 2003) (p r ov i di ng puni shm ent fo r second- degr ee f el ony 20 a s n o t m o re th a n tw e n ty ye a rs o r l e s s th a n tw o y e a rs , p l u s fi n e n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ); i d

. at § 12. 32 ( Ver non 2003) ( pr ov i di ng p uni shm ent f or f i r st
- degr ee f el ony as not m or e t han 99 y ear s orl ess t han f i v e y ear s, pl us f i ne n o t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ); see L ockyer v. Andr ade , 5 3 8 U .S . 6 3 , 7 2 -7 3 (2 0 0 3 ). See Ex part e Moody , 991 S. W

. 2d a t 857
- 58. 21 7 hear ing

. Fi nal ly , w it h reg ard to couns el’ s fail ure to obj ectto appel lan t’ s punis hment as “ cr uel and unu sual ,” w e not e that any puni shmentw it hin the appl ic abl e rang e i s n ot ex ces si v e or cr uel and unusu al. Ap pel lan t' s s entenc es and fines are w it hin the sta tutor y rang e and do 19 notapp ear to b e extreme instan ces in w hich a sen ten ce w ithin th e p ermissible range is nonethe les s g ro ss ly

di spropor

ti onate to t he c ri me commi tted. 20 Conclusion A p p e ll a n th a s n o tsa t is f ie d h is b u rd e n t o sh o w th a th e re c e i v e d in e f fe c t ive
a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l. He fa il e d t o e s t a b li s h t h a th is co u n s e l’ s co n d u c tfe ll b e lo w a re a s o n a b le st a n d a rd o f co m p e t e n c e o r t h a tb u tfo r h is c o u n s e l’ s e rr o rs , h e wo u ld n o th a ve p le a d e d gu il t y. 21 W e af f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, 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 ered and filed thi s t he 14t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.