C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
HOWARD DEWAYNE WHI TE, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 00 20 -C R

Appea l from the 163rd Judi cial District Court of Or ang e County , T e xas (TC# B- 060,437-R)

O P I N I O N Howar d Dewa

y ne White was convic ted of c apital murder , and sente nced to life imprisonment in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. He raises thre e issues on appe al. In I ssue One, he contends the tria l court abuse d its discretion by denying his motion to suppress. In I ssue Two, he argues that he w as denie d his right to ef fec tive assistance of counse l at trial. In I ssue Thre e, Appe llant challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence supporting the conviction. On Janu ary 10 , 2 00 6, Ap pe lla

nt a nd his c o- de fe nd ant M r. Ge ro id Janic e , w e nt t o Mr. Chad Stephens’ house to sell a ca r. Ms. L atisha Runnels, Mr. Stephens’ f iancé , was at the h o u s e a tth at t i m e, an d

s h e s aw Ap p el l an ts t an d i n g o u t s i d e o f h er b ed ro o mwi n d o w w ea ri n g a g ray sweatshirt. Appellant and Mr. Janice lef t, but returned to f

inalize the sale a shor

t time later. Mr. Stephens let the Appe llant and Mr. Janice in the house. The y followed Mr. Stephe ns to the be dr oo m. M r. Ste ph e ns sat in the c ha ir c ounti ngout th e mon e y

fo r t he ve hic le . M s. Runne ls testified that she notice d that Appellant and Mr . J anice wer e ar med. Ner vous, she went into the-2-

liv ingro om t o g e t Mr . St e ph e ns ’ gun , w hic h s he wa s a ble to h ide un de r t

he sh e e t in

the be dr oo m. After completing the sale, A

ppellant and Mr. Janice a sked Mr. Stephens to drive them ho me . St ill un e a sy

a bo ut t he sit uatio n, Ms. Runne ls w e nt t o g e t he r o wn c ar k e y s, int e nd ingto follow the men in her

own ca r. B ut before she re ache d her pur se, she sa w Appellant a

nd Mr. J anice push Mr. Stephens bac k into the bedroom. Appe llant pointed a gun at her fianc é, and order ed him to open a pe rsonal saf e. Mr . Jan ic e tur

ne d h is gun

on Ms. Runne ls. Mr . St e ph e ns sta rt e d to jum

p a c ro ss t he be d to shield her, but Appe llant hit Mr. St ephens in the ba ck of the head. Mr . Stephens fell on the be d, and found the g un hidden by Ms. Runnels under the shee t. When he stood up holding the
wea pon, Appellant and Mr . J anice ran f rom the bedr oom. Appellant and Mr. Janice r an out of the house a

nd went in diffe rent dire ctions. As Mr. Stephens and Ms. Runnels we re standingat the door, Appe llant came r unning ba ck. When Mr. Stephens star ted to close the door , Appellant sh ot a nd kil le d h im. Ap pe lla nt l e ft and we nt t o M r. Jani c e ’s a

pa rtme nt. At

the a pa rtme nt, Ap pe lla

nt t old Mr . Jan ic e ’s wi fe wh a t ha d h a pp e ne d. Ap pe lla

nt e xpla ine d th a t a ft e r M r. Ste ph e ns pu lle d o ut a wad of money to pay for the c ar, the three men started a rguing. A

ppellant told Mrs. J anice that Mr. Stephens re fused to purc hase the car at that point, and that he star ted shooting at Appellant
and Mr . Jan ic e . A c c or din g to A pp e lla nt’ s a c c ount, he fi re d s e ve ra l sh ots a t Mr . St e ph e ns to pr ote c t Mr . Jan ic e a s th e y fl e d th e ho us e . App e lla

nt a dmi tte d th a t he ra

n f ro m th e sc e ne and

hid for a moment, placed his ha

nd on his chest to confirm what side his heart wa s on, and then
re tur ne d a nd fi re d s e ve ra l sh ots dir e c tly a t Mr . St e ph e ns ’ c he st, int e nd ingto k ill him
. De te c tiv e Da

nny Ho dg e s a ssi ste d w iththe inv e sti g a tio n o f M r. Ste ph e ns ’ m ur de r. With-3-

the help of the Police Depa rtment in Vinton, L ouisiana, De tective Hodg es wa s able to pre sent Ms. Runnels with a photo lineup, which included a photo of Appellant. Ms. Runnels identified Appellant as the man who killed her fianc é. She testified at the pretria l hear ing that it was Appellant’s nose that immediately drewher attention to his photogr aph. Appe llant filed a pretria l motion t o suppress the photog raphic lineup, arguing that it was impermissibly sug g estive
and ind uc e d M s. Runne ls t o ma

ke su c h id e nti fi c a tio n. Th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d th e mot ion

to suppress, and the case proce eded to tria l. The jury found Appe llant guilty

of the off ense of capital murde r and se ntence d him to li fe, w ithout the possibi lity of par ole. In I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt c omp la ins that th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

de nyinghis motion to s uppress Ms. Runnel’s identification from the photo arr ay . In particula r, Appe llant
argue s th a t th e ph oto arr ay wa s im pe rm iss ibl y

su g g e sti ve , b e c a

us e the ba c kg ro un d o f t

he ph oto de pic tin g Ap pe lla

nt w a s li g hte r c omp are d to the ba c kg ro un ds in t he oth e r p ho togra

ph s. As a preliminary

matter, howe ver, w e must addre ss whether Appellant has pr eser

ved the a lleg ed er

ror for a ppellate r eview. I t is we ll s e ttl e d th a t w he n th e tr ia l c ourt ov e rr ule s a pr e tr ia l mo tio n to su

pp re ss, Appellant nee d not subsequently object at tria l to the same evide nce in or der to pre serve err or on appea l. Ge ar ing

v . S tate , 685 S.W .2d 326, 329 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Howeve r, whe n Appellant af

firmatively

asser ts during tr ial that he has “ no objection” to the a dmission of the complained of

evidenc e, he w aives a

ny err or in the admission of the evide nce de spite the pretr ial ruling
. Gearing , 685 S.W .2d at 329. At the pre trial stag e, Appe llant filed a motion to suppress the photog raphic lineup, and the trial cour

t overrule d the motion. However , when the State attempted to introduce the-4-

e vid e nc e of

the same ph oto g ra

ph ic lin e up duri ngthe tr ia l a s E xhibi t 14 , App e lla nt a ff ir mativ e ly stated that he ha d “no objec tion” to the admissibili ty of the a rra y . By failing to rene w the objection, Appellant wa ived any err or in the trial cour

t’s denial of the motion to s uppress. See Gearing , 685 S.W .2d at 329. Acc ording ly , I ssue One is ove rruled ba sed on lac k of pre servation. In I ssu e Tw o, Ap pe lla

nt a rgue s th a t tr ia l c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e wa s c on sti tut ion a lly ine ff e c tiv e , th e re by

de nyinghim

of his ri g ht t o e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l. T he Sup re me Court ha s r e c og nize d th a t th e Sixth A me ndme nt r ig ht t o c ouns e l e xists , a nd is n e e de d, in o rd e r t o protec t the fundame ntal rig ht to a fair tr ial. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 684, 104 S.Ct . 2052, 2062-63, 80 L .Ed.2d 614 (1984). The rig ht to counsel is the rig ht to the effe ctive assistance of counse l. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct . at 2063-64. In deter mining whe ther the assistance of counse l is effe ctive or not, we apply a two-pr ongtest. Id . at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Appellant bea

rs the burde n of provingboth components by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Sa lin as v . S

tate , 163 S.W .3d 734, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). First, Appe llant must show that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt. Strickland , 466 U. S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; Pe re z v . S tate , 310 S.W .3d 890, 892-93 (Te x .Crim.App. 2010). To satis fy thi s p ro ngof

the ana ly sis , App e lla

nt m us t sh owthat c ouns e l’ s r e pr e se ntatio n f e ll below an obje ctive standa rd of r easona

bleness base d upon “re vailing pr ofessional norms.” Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 8, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 65 ; Perez , 310 S.W .3d at 893. Appellate revie w of defe nse counse l's e fficie ncy is highly defe rential a

nd indulge s a strongpresumption that counsel’s c onduct fa lls withi n a wide r ang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance. Mallet v. Sta te , 6 5 S. W.3 d 5 9, 63 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 01 ). To de fe a t th e pr e sumpt ion , th e re c or d mu st aff irmatively

demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Tho mp so n v . S tate , 9 S.W .3d 808, 814-5-

(Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Howeve r, in the majority of ca ses, the re cord on dire ct appe al ar e insufficient to show that counse l’s repr esentation was so defic ient and so lac king in tac tical or str a te g ic de c isi on

makin g a s to ov e rc ome the pr e sumpt ion that c ouns e l’ s c on du c t w a s r e a so na ble and prof essional. Bo nev . S

tate , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). We cannot speculate that no plausible prof essional re ason exists for c ounsel’s spec ific ac t or omission, but should provide the counse l with an opportunity to expl ain his actions bef ore be ing c ondemned a s unprofe ssional and incompetent. Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 833. Second, Appe llant must show that the deficient pe rfor mance prejudice d his defense
. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; Perez , 3 10 S.W. 3d a t 89 3. An

e rr or by c ouns e l, even if profe ssionally

unrea sonable, doe s not warr ant setting aside the judg ment of a c riminal proce edingif the er

ror ha d no eff

ect on the judg ment. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct . at 2066. To establish prejudice , Appellant must show that there is a rea sonable proba bility that but for the c ounsel’s unprof

essional er

rors, the r esult of the proc eedingwould have be en diffe rent. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct . at 2068. Appellant first a lleg es that trial counse l failed to off er e ffe ctive assistanc e bec ause he f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n v e s t i g a t e th e c a s e , an d t o p r e s e n tana d e qu a t e d e f e n s e . P art i c u l ar l y, Appellant ar g ues counse l failed to pre sent any defe nsive evidenc e. To prove the ineff ective assistance of counse l, the rec ord must affir matively demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. In the instant case , the re cord pr ovides no insight as to why counsel fa ile d to int

ro du c e su c h e vid e nc e . In f a c t, t he re c or d is sil e nt a s to wh e the r e vid e nc e fa vo ra ble to Appellant wa s available for introduc tion. See Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 833. Without some evidenc e
on the iss ue , th e pr e sumpt ion that c ouns e l pr ov ide d r e a so na ble pr of e ssi on a l a ssi sta

nc e in t his-6-

instance stands. Se e id . Appellant has f ailed to ca

rry his burden to prove by

a pre pondera

nce of
e vid e nc e that c ouns e l’ s p e rf or manc e wa s c on sti tut ion a lly de fi c ie nt. Next, Appellant complains that counsel wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he conducte d insufficient
cross-e x amination of the State’s w itnesses. Acc ording to the rec ord, howe ver, tria l counsel
cross-e x amined seve n out of nine witnesses put on the stand by the State. Particular ly , judging from the leng th of the transc ript, and extent of the questions, counsel’s c ross-examination of the key witness, Ms. Runnels, cannot be sa id to be limit ed. The ref ore, A ppellant has fa iled to car

ry his burden to establish def icient assistance , by

a pre pondera

nce of evidenc e on this argument as
we ll. Inh i s fi n al ar gu m en t , Ap p el l an tco n t en d s th at h i s tri al co un s el ’s fa i l ure t o re qu es ta j ury ch ar ge
o f th e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f mur d e r c o n s t i tu t e d

i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Appellant alleg es that he w as entitled to the jury char g e of murde r bec ause the evidenc e demonstrates that he was not c ommitt ing r obbery when he shot and killed Mr. Stephens, but was flee ing f rom the house a fter Mr . Stephens beg an shooting at him. He also a lleg es that the fa ilure to reque st a jury

char g e of the lesser inc luded offe nse ca used suffic ient harm to him beca use the offe nse of murde r ca

rries a lesser se ntence as compa red w ith a mandatory

life sentenc e for

the offe nse of c apital murder
. To deter mine whether

a jury must be char g ed on a le sser-inc luded offe nse, the c ourt applies a two- prongtest. Ma thi s v . S tate , 67 S.W .3d 918, 925 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). First, the le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e mus t be inc lud e d w ith in t he pr oo f n e c e ssa

ry to e sta bli shthe of

fe ns e char g ed. Ma thi

s , 67 S.W .3d at 925. Second, ther e must be some evide nce in the r ecor d that would permit a jury

rationally

to find that if the def

endant is guilty , he is g uilty only of the lesse r-7-

offe nse. Id . Murder

is a lesser- included off

ense of capital murde r. Mc

Kin ne yv . S tate , 207 S.W. 3d 36 6, 37 0 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). Th e re fo re , a pp e lla nt s a tis fi e s th e fi rs t pr on g of the te st. We m us t ne xt de te rm ine wh e the r t he re c or d c on ta ins e vid e nc e that App e lla nt i s guil ty

of on ly murder. At trial, Ms. Runnels testified that she saw A ppellant pointing a

g un at Mr. Stephens telling him to open the sa fe. A fter Mr . Stephens ag ree d to open the saf e, Mr. Janice a

pproac hed Ms. Runne ls a

nd ra ise d u p th e g un . M r. Ste ph e ns jum pe d a c ro ss t

he be d to pr ote c t Ms . Runn e ls,
and Ap pe lla nt s tart e d h itt ingMr . St e ph e ns in t he ba c k o f t

he he a d. Mr . St e ph e ns re a c he d f or his g un under the sheets and r aised up with it. Then Appe llant and Mr. Janice starte d running , and Mr . St e ph e ns c ha se d th e m w ithhis g un . Wh e n M s. Runne ls f oll ow e d th e m in to t

he liv ingro om, she hea rd a bunc h of gunshots. Appellant and Mr. Janice ra n out of the house in diffe rent dir e c tio ns . A s Mr . St e ph e ns and Ms. Runne ls w e re sta

nd inga t th e do or , App e lla nt r an b a c k into the y ard. When Mr. Stephe ns moved to shut the door, Appellant shot and killed him. Ag ain,
acc ordingto Ms. Runnels, Appellant killed Mr. Stephens as he wa s fleeingthe victim’s home, immediately

afte r he pointed a

g un at Mr. Stephens, de manding that he open the safe
. Be cause the evidenc e provide d a basis for one to conc lude that Appellant killed Mr. Stephens in the cour se of c ommitt ing a robber y , the evidenc e supported submission of the capital of fense char g e to the jury , rathe r than the le sser off ense of murder. SeeT EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (2)( West 2011). Appellant pointed to no mitigatingevidenc e in the re cord that would entitle him to a jury char g e of murde r. See Bone , 77 S.W .3d at 837. As such, Appe llant failed to de monstrate that trial c ounsel’s fa ilure to reque st such a jury char g e fe ll below an ob je c tiv e sta

nd ard of re a so na ble ne ss, and

Ap pe lla nt’ s a rgume nt m

us t be ov e rr

ule d und e r t

he fi rs t-8-

prongof Strikland
. See Strick land , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7, 69 4. As Ap pe lla nt h a s n ot s a tis fi e d th e fi rs t prong , there is no need to discuss pre judice, and I ssue Two is over ruled. In I ssu e Thre e , App e lla

nt c omp la ins that th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c onvic tio n o f c a

pit a l murd e r. Ho we ve r, sin c e Ap pe lla nt f ile d h is
a pp e llate br ie f, the Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l App e a ls a

ba nd on e d f a c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y sta nd ard in criminal ca ses, and r

uled that the leg al suffic iency standard se t out in J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a is the
on ly sta nd ard that a re vie wi ngc ourt

sh ou ld a pp ly in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he e vid e nc e is sufficie nt to support each e lement of a criminal off

ense be y ond a re asonable doubt. Brooks v. Sta te , 323 S.W .3d 893, 911-12 (Te x .Crim.App. 2010). Ther efor e, in the intere sts of justice, and in light of the Brooks decision, we will construe I ssue Thre e solely as a c halleng e to the leg al sufficie ncy

of the e vidence
. See Brooks , 323 S.W .3d at 899. In r e vie wi ngthe le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e mus t c on sid e r a ll o f t he e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, and de termine whe ther a rea sonable juror

could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt. See Brooks , 323 S.W .3d at 899, citing J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L .Ed.2d 560 ( 1 9 7 9 )
. W e mu s tg i v e d e f e r e n c e t o th e f

a c tf i n d e r ’ s r o l e a s th e s o l e j u d g e o f w i tn e s s c r e d i b i l i ty, and the we ight of

their testimony
. Brooks , 323 S.W .3d at 899. An individual commits an offense of ca pital murder if he intentionally commits the murder in the c ourse of

committing or attempting to commit robbery
. SeeT EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 1 9. 03 (a )( 2) . In th e c ours e of c omm itt ingro bb e ry

me ans c on du c t th a t oc c ur s in an atte mpt

to commit, during the commission, or in im mediate f light af ter the attempt or commission of robber y . See Ga rre tt v . S

tate , 8 51 S.W. 2d

85 3, 85 6 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); se e als o ,-9-

T EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (2). Appellant ar g ues the e vidence is insufficient to support the conviction bec ause the evidenc e indicate s that he wa s trying to f lee f rom Mr. Stephens, not committing a r obbery
. Reg ardle ss of the evide nce of Appellant’s f

light howe ver, a

capital murde r off

ense is not temporally

limit ed to the time duringwhich Appe llant committed the robbery
. See Ga rre tt , 851 S.W .2d at 856. In circ umstances suc h as these, the chronolog y of the off ense inc ludes the moments of Appellant’s f light fr om the scene immediately following the commission of the robber y . See id . As discussed in I ssue Two, Ms. Runnels testified that Appe llant shot and killed Mr. Stephens in an immediate f light af ter he committed robbery . In light of the defe renc e we
mu s ts h o wt o th e f

a c tf i n d e r i nj u d g i n g th e w i tn e s s c r e d i b i l i ty an d th e w e i g h to f

th e t e s t i m o n y,
and vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, w e c on c lud e that a re a so na ble fac t finder c ould have f

ound beyond a re asonable doubt that Appellant shot and killed Mr. Stevens as he was fle eingthe sce ne of a robber y . As such the e vidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support the conviction for c apital murder
. See Brooks , 3 23 S.W. 3d a t 89 9. I ssu e Thre e is
overr uled. Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d a ll thr e e iss ue s, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . Aug ust 17, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)