### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 388 -CR

Ine tt e We sle y , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

FROM THE C OUNT Y COUR T AT L AW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY , NO. C-1-C R-06 -7253 23

HO NORAB LE NANCY WRI GHT H OH ENGARTEN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A judg e found a

ppellant Inette Wesley

g uilty of the misdemeanor offe nse of making a fa lse repor

t to a peac e off

icer conce rninga domestic dispute. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 37.08 (West 2003)
. The trial court assessed punishment at 30 day s in jail and a $1,000 fine, but suspende d imposit ion of sentenc e and pla ced a pp el l ant on community

supervision for nine months, ordering her to re port to a stress clinic for evaluation a nd complete 20 hours of community service
. In four issues, appellant, a

ppear ing pr o se, conte nds that she receive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, that two of the State’s w itnesses made false st atements in their t estimony , and that the puni shment she
rec eived wa s unfair. F or the re asons that follow, we aff irm the judg ment of convic tion. Evidence at trial bef

ore the cour

t showed that on the e arly afte rnoon of January

3, 20 06 , a pp e lla nt a lon g wi th h e r d a

ug hte r, Aki a, arri ve d at B ri an K e ph art ’s ho me in P fl ug e rv ill e to2

pic k u p h e r gra nd so n f or fi ve ho urs of

c ourt -o rd e re d v isi tatio n. Ke ph art te sti fi e d th a t a

pp e lla nt i s his “g randson’ s other g randpa rent.” When Akia enter ed Ke phart’s home to ge t the gra n d s o n , Kephart beg an to put the boy ’s shoes on. Moments later , appellant “ burst” throug h the do o r, as k i n g for he r g randson a nd
c omp la ini ngof

the de lay . Wh e n s he re fu se d to wa it o uts ide and tol d K e ph art he wo uld have to c a ll 91 1 to g e t he r o ut, Ke ph art the n c a lle d 9 11 . H e tol d th e 91 1 d isp a tc he r t hat he had a “la dy in my house that will not ge t out.” Appellant left the hous e and K ephar t observed he r makinga ca ll on her cell phone. Appellant also ha d place d a ca ll to 911, complaining of a shooting. Within m inutes, two office rs re sponding to a

“disturbanc e” c all arr ived at Ke phart’s house
. A dispatche r fo r t h e R o u nd Rock Police Depa rtment testified that she r ece ived a call fr om a woman on a ce ll phone that there had bee n a shooting at the Pflug erville re sidence . The woman stated that “somebody just got shot over here” and “some body is shooting at us over

here .” I n a dd ition to c a lli ngthe Pf lug e rv ill e Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt, the dis patc he r a lso a le rt e d th e Tr avis County law enf orce ment communications and the Round Rock narc otics depar tment to serve as bac k-up. The first office rs to a rrive wer e responding to K ephar t’s call. Once there , they

wer e aler ted by their dispatcher that there had been a shooting . The off icer s treate d the ca ll as a “shooting in pr o gress.” One off

icer asked K ephar

t if he had a

ny wea pons in the home, which he did. The of fi c e r i ns pe c te d th e m to de te rm ine if the y ha d b e e n f

ir e d r e c e ntl y . T he y

ha d n ot. I n response to a

n office r’s query , appellant admitted that she had repor ted a shooting to ge t a quicker

police re sponse. She testified that she c alled 911:3

Be cause Ifelt like my g randson was being unlawfully restra ined by his gr andfather and his mother, and I

was c alling the police to g et a re sponse to g et my g randson out o f t h e
— o u to f

t h e h o u s e . . . . W e o n l y h a d f i v e h o ur s w i thh i mth a td ay. At trial, it wa s undisputed that appellant made the call. Appellant testified that she was upset a nd fee ling thre atene d and provoke d. On cro s s-examination, appellant ag ain ac knowledg ed that she repor ted a shooting to ge t a fa ster re sponse from the police : Q. An d you

kn e w that if

y ou tol d 9 11 , if

y ou ma de a state me nt l ike that to the m, that they would respond quicke r? A. Itho ug ht t

he y wo uld , b ut t

he y did n’ t. Appellant testi fied that she di d not know that such a r eport wa s ag ainst the law a nd that she admitted at the close of the 911 c all that she wa s not sure that there had been a shooting and then t hat it had not happene d. After the pol ice determined there had been no shooting , an off icer retrie ved a c opy of t he 911 tape from the P flug erville P olice Department and filed fa lse repor t char g es. Afte r a be nch trial in which the trial c ourt found appe llant guilty , this appeal followe d.

I n her first two issues, appellant complains that she rec eived ineffe ctive a s s i s t ance of c ouns e l. S he c on te nd s th a t the 91 1 ta pe ha d b e e n ta

mpe re d w ithand

that sh e ha d a

mor e a c c ur a te
re c or din g that he r “ lawye r did no t f ig ht v e ry ha rd to g e t it su bmi tte d. ” She a lso ur g e s th a t e -m a ils sh e se nt t he dis patc he r in whi c h s he a po log ize d to the dis patc he r “ on ly” “ sin c e y ou we re the on ly one I reme mber lying to” should have be en admitted into e vidence
. Appellant also complains that her tria l counsel did not produce witnesses to te stify on her behalf that she wa s under stre ss and had4

to “fig ht” to see he r g randson. Appe llant contends that her lawy er neg lected her case because he had
ani l l n e s s i nh i s f

am i l y. To demonstrate ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, a defe n d ant m ust show both that (i) counse l’s perf

ormanc e fell below an objective standard of rea sonablene ss and (ii) the de ficient perf ormanc e wa s so serious that it prejudice d the defendant’s c ase. See Strick land v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The def en d an t must identify

the ac ts or omissions of counse l that are alleg ed to co n stitut e inef fec tive assistance and af firmatively

show that they

fall below the profe ssional norm for re asonable ness. Ga rc ia v. Sta te , 887 S.W .2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (c i t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690). Under the first prongof Strickland , th e de fe nd ant m us t
ov e rc ome the str on g pr e sumpt ion that th e c ouns e l’ s c on du c t f e ll w ith in t

he wi de ra ng e of re a so na ble profe ssional assistance. See Strick land , 466 U.S. at 689. We may not spe culate in de termining why a trial c ounsel took cer

tain actions. Se e J

ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S .W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. C rim. App. 19 94 ). Un de r t

he se c on d p ro ngof

the te st, the de fe nd ant, a ft er sh owi ng err or , mu st a ff ir mativ e ly prove pr ejudice. Se e Ga rc ia , 8 8 7 S
. W
. 2 d at 8 8 0 (c i t i n g Stickland, 4 66 U. S. at 68 7) . App e lla nt m us t prove that counsel’s error s, judge d by the t otality of the re prese ntation, not by isolated instances of
err or, denie d her a

fair tr ial. M

c F a r l a n d v . Stat e , 9 2 8 S.W .2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (c i t i n g Strickland , 46 6 U. S. a t 69 5)
. Ap pe lla nt mus t sh ow that the re is a re a sonab le p roba bil ity that, but f or counsel’s e rror , the fa ctfinder would have ha d a re asonable doubt of her guilt. Id
. In revie wing this determination, we c onsider the totality of t he evidence before the factfinder
. Id . Any
a lle g a tio n o f i ne ff

e c tiv e ne ss m

us t be fi rm ly

fo un de d in the re c or d and the re c or d mu st a ff

ir mativ e ly demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Id
. (c i t i n g Ex parte Cruz , 7 39 S.W. 2d 53 , 5 9 ( Te x. Cr im.5

App. 1 987)). F ailure to make the re quired showingof either defic ient perf

ormanc e or suf

ficient prejudice defe ats the ineff ectivene ss claim. Id
. (c i t i n g Strickland , 466 U.S. at 700). We beg in by

observingthat no evidentiar y hear i n g wa s held to develop a rec ord substantiating a

ppellant’s alleg ations and the a lleg ations are not firmly founded in the rec ord. The decision not to offe r the e -mails could be c onsidered sound tria l strateg y as they contain admissions of wrong doing. As to the other claimed omitted evidence , appellant ha s failed to pre serve err or for revie w bec ause the appellate rec ord does not r efle ct what the omitted e vidence would have shown. Tex. R. App. P . 33.1. There is no support in the recor d that the 911 tape- rec ording was tampe red with or that her c ounsel neg lected he r ca se.

Appellant fa ils to show that trial counsel’s cond u c t f e llb e lo w the Strickland standard. Even ha d counsel’s be h av i o r fallen below the standa rd, appe llant failed in ea ch instance to prove prejudice or that the res u l t o f t h e proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent. We over rule a ppellant’s fi rs t and se c on d is su e s. I n her third issue, appellant contends that witnesses Kepha rt and his daug hter made false sta te me n ts in

th e ir te s ti mo n y . Sh e c o n te n d s th a t K e p h art’ s te s ti mo n y th a t h e an d

a p p e llant had neve r had pr oblems befor e in their c ustody exchang es wa s simply

not t ru e, and appellant
rec ounted instance s on Fe bruar y 18 an d D e c e mb e r

2 4, 2005, on which proble ms occurr ed. Appe llant
a lso ur g e d— and

te sti fi e d—

that “ Itol d th e c ourt

a bo ut t he pr ob lem s th at we h a d” wi th K e ph art . Ap pe lla nt a lso c omp la ine d that one of the of fi c e rs lie d w he n h e state d in his re po rt “ that he us e d h is siren y et no one he ard it.”6 A p e rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of makin g a fal se r e po rt

to a pe a c e of fi c e r i f, wi th intent to dece ive, she knowing ly makes a false statement that is material to a c riminal investigation and makes the statement to a pe ace office r conduc ting the inve stigation. Tex . Penal Code Ann. § 37. 08 . The tr ia l ju dg e , w he n s itt inga s th e so le tr ie r o f f a c t, i s th e e xclu siv e jud g e of the c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s and the we ight to be g iven their testimony
. Mc Fa rla nd v . S

tate , 928 S.W .2d 482, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The judg e wa s authorized to a cce pt or reje ct any or all of the te stimony of the witnesse s for e ither par ty . W ink le yv . S tate , 123 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003,
no pe t. )
. B y

h e r o w nt e s t i m o n y , a

p p e l l an te s t a

b l i s h e d a l l e l e m e n t s o f

th e o f f e n s e . W e o v e rr

ule appellant’ s third issue.

Al tho ug h a

pp ell ant urges in h e r f

ourt h is su e that he r s e nte nc e wa s unf a ir , s he fa ils to cite an y

a u th o r it y o r to ma k e an y ar g u me n t i ns u

p p o rt o f h e r c la im an d h a s th e r e f

o r e prese nted nothing for re view. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 38 .1 (h ); W

y att v . S tate , 2 3 S. W.3 d 1 8, 23 n. 5 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2000). Havingoverr uled appe llant’s issues, we a ffirm the judg ment of convic tion.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Affir med Filed: August 28, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh