See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 4 6.04 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 09 ). 1 I n i t s cer t i f i cat i on o fdef endan t ' s r i ght of app eal , t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed a ppel l ant t he r i ght t o ap peal 2 hi s conv i ct i on. 

# NUM BER 13-08- 433- 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
ST EVEN PER EZ A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f

Nu eces C ou nty , 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 Y añ ez a n d G arza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lan t, Stev en Perez , pl eaded "n olo co ntendere" to poss ess ion of a firear m by a felon pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement w it h the Sta te. Bytw o iss ues, appell ant c ontends

1 2B o th o f th e s e c h a rg e s w e re b ro u g h t i n s ta te c o u rt. 3 A c c o rd i n g to th e S ta te , t h e re w a s a "p e n d i n g . . . fe d e ra l p ro b a ti o n re v o c a ti o n o n th a t c a s e ." 4 T he a ppend i x of

app el l ant ' s br i efcont ai ns a copy of t he j udgm ent i n f eder al cause num ber 5 2: 03C R 00278
- 001. However , i t i s not i ncl uded i n t he a ppel l at e r ecor d i n t hi s case. " [ A] n appel l at e cou r t m ust det er m i ne a case on t he r ecor d as f i l ed a nd ca nnot consi der docu m ent s at t ached as exh i bi t s orapp endi ces to b rie fs o r m o ti o n s ." B l a n kv . S ta te , 172 S. W

. 3d 6 73, 675 n. 1 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 2005, no pet

. ) ( op. on r eh' g) ( ci t i ng T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 4 .1 )) ; s e e Va n d e rb i l t v . S ta te , 62 9 S

. W

. 2d 70 9, 71 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 81 ). T h e re fo re , w e a re u n a b l e to c o n s i d e r th i s d o c u m e n t. S e e P o ll a n v . S ta te , 6 1 2 S .W .2 d 5 9 4 , 5 9 6 ( T e x . C r im

. App. 1981) (r ef usi ng t o consi der an aff i dav i t at t ached t o t he a ppel l ant ' s br i efbeca use i t was no t i nt r oduced at t ri al an d n ot pa rt of t he rec ord on ap pe al ). 

## 2 t h a th e wa s d e n ie d d u e p ro c e s s o f la w a n d t h a th is t ri a l c o u n s e l r e n d e re d in e f fe c t ive as s i s ta nc e. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 

## App ellantw as charged w ith posse ssion of a f irearm by a felon in trial court cause number 07- CR -1 224- B, a nd, i n a rela ted c ase, appel lan t w as charg ed w it h murder i n tr ial cour t c ause number

07-C R- 159- B. A j ur

y found appel lan t g uil ty

of murde r, and appel lan t 3


## w as sent enced to si xty y ears' impr is onment. Subs eq uentl y , pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement
w it h the Sta te, appel lan t pl eaded "n olo co ntendere" to poss ess ion of a fire ar m by

a felo n. In exchan ge fo r appe llant's plea , the State agreed to recom me nd to the trial court a s entenc e of si x

y ears' co nfinement to r un c oncur re ntl y w it h the s entenc e i mposed in the murde r cas e and "any se ntenc e t h a t m a y

be i mposed in Fede ra l Cau se No. 2: .

. . 03C R27 8001." On June 9, 2008, the t ri al cour t found app ell ant g uil ty

of poss ess ion 4 

## of a f irearm by a fe lon, se nte nced him to six y ears' conf inem ent and followed the State 's recom me nda tion th at ap pellan t's sente nce run concu rrently w ith sen ten ces imp osed in caus e number

07- CR-159- B and federal ca use number 2:03 -C R- 278001. O n J une 24, 5 

## 200 8, ap pellan t f iled a mo tion for n ew trial a nd in arrest of ju dgme nt, w hich th e trial courtI t app ear s t hat m any of appe l l ant ' s com pl ai nt s i n hi s m ot i on f or new t r i al per t ai n t o hi s m ur der 6 conv i ct i on. Appel l ant m ade t he f ol l owi ng com pl ai nt s concer ni ng hi s conv i ct i on of possessi on o fa f i r ear m by a f el on: ( 1) " [ t ] he j udgm ent i s i nv al i d" ; ( 2) " [ d] ef endan t di d no t ent er hi s pl ea knowi ng, [ si c] i nt ent i onal l y and v o lu n ta ril y "; a n d (3 ) " [d ]e fe n d a n t w a s d e n i e d e ff e c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l ." In h i s m o ti o n fo r n e w tr ia l, a p p e lla n t d id n o t r e q u e s t w i t h d r a w a l o fh is p le a o r a lle g e th a t t h e S ta te f a ile d to f u lf ill th e p le a b a r g a in a g r e e m e n t. O n a p p e a l, a p p e lla n t d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t h is p le a w a s in v o lu n ta r y.

W e not e t hat t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d sho wi ng what sent ence appel l ant i s ser v i ng o r whet her 7 he i s r ecei v i ng st at e cr edi t whi l e ser v i ng hi s fe der al sent ence or vi ce ver sa. T her ef or e, t he r ecor d do es no t re v e a l w h e th e r th e S ta te h a s u p h e ld it s e n d o f th e b a rg a i n . S ee S t ate v

. M oo re , 240 S. W

. 3d 2 48, 251
- 52 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ("O n c e a p l e a a g re e m e n t i s fi n a l i ze d a n d th e tri a l c o u rt b i n d s i ts e l f t o th e te rm s , b o th t he d ef endan t and t he p r osecut or ar e en t i t l ed t o t he be ne fi t o f t he agr eem ent

. At t he sa m e t i m e, bot h t he de fen da nt an d t he pros ec utor are a l s o b ou nd t o u ph ol d t he i r end s of t he ba rga i n." ).

M o o re v . S ta te , 29 5 S

. W

. 3d 32 9, 33 3 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 09 ). 8 T EX . R. A PP . P

. 33

. 1(a )( 1)(A ). 9 

## 3 deni ed. 6 

## II. D U E 

## P R OC ESS 

## By hi s first iss u e, ap pel lan t c ontends thathe w as deni ed due proces s o f law b e c a u s e o f

t h e S t a t e ' s " in a b il it y t o f u lf il l t h e p le a b a r g a i n a g re e m e n t

. " Sp e c if ic a ll y, appel lan t arg ues that "[n]ei ther the prosec utor

nor the Tri al Cou rthad the p ow er to order the fede ral court to run its pe ndin g sent ence concu rrent w ith the sente nce in th is cas e . . . ."; therefore, the S tate w as unabl e to fulfill its "promis e to hav e the se ntenc es ru n conc ur re ntl y ." 7 

## "Pre serv ation of

error i s a sy stem ic req uirem en t of ev eryapp eal." Genera lly , before 8 

## a par ty may co mplai n on appeal , t he record must show thatthe par

ty made t he c omplai nt to the "tr ial cour

t by a ti mely re q uest , obj ect ion , or moti on that

. . . sta ted the g ro unds for the r uli ng thatthe compl ain ing par ty so ug ht fro m the tr ial cour t w it h suffici ent s peci fici ty to ma ke the trial court aw are of the com plaint. . . ." In this case, a ppe llant did not com plain 9S ee M oo re , 2 9 5 S .W .3 d a t 3 3 3 (c o n c l u d i n g th a t t h e a p p e l l a n t fa i l e d to p re s e rv e e rr o r b y fa i l i n g to 10 o b j e c t t h a t t h e tri a l c o u rt's a d d i ti o n a l c o n d i ti o n s to a p l e a -b a rg a i n a g re e m e n t w e re i m p ro p e r) ; Bi t t e r m a n v. S ta te , 180 S. W

. 3d 139, 144 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 2005) ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he appel l ant pr eser v ed hi s i ssue t hat t he S ta te v io la te d th e p le a b a r g a in a g r e e m e n t "b y b r in g in g it to th e tr ia l c o u r t's a tt e n tio n a s s o o n a s th e e r r o r c o u ld be cu red , i n a m oti on for ne w t ri al " ).

S e e G o o d s p e e dv . S ta te , 187 S. W

. 3d 3 90, 392 ( T ex. C ri m . A pp . 2 005) ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and v. 11 W ashi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 )) ; Th o m p s o n v . S ta te , 9 S

. W

. 3d 80 8, 81 2 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 99 ). Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2 ; see Str i ckl and , 466 U

. S. at 687

. 12 Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 2 ; see Str i ckl and , 466 U

. S. at 694

. 13 

## 4 to t he tr ial co urt t hat t he St ate w as unabl e or fail ed to fulfil l the p lea barg ain ag re ement. 10 

## T here fore, ap pellan t failed to prese rv e any e rror for o ur rev iew . W e overrule appe llant's firs t i ss ue. III . I N EFFEC TI VE 

## A SS I ST A NCE OF 

## C OU N SEL 

## B y h is se c o n d is s u e , a p p e ll a n tco n t e n d s t h a th is t ri a l co u n s e l r e n d e re d in e f fe c t ive assistan ce of

coun sel "[b ]eca use o f his failure to raise th e issue of the ad missibility of

[his] confess ion and to ad v is e appel lan t t hat h is pl ea barg ain co uld not be fulfil led ." A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Ine f fective assistance of

c oun sel claims are e v alua ted und er the two-part test arti cul ated by th e U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t i n Str ickl and v . Washi ngton

. The

11 

## Str ickl and tes t req uires the a ppel lan t to show that c ounse l' s p er

formance w as defici ent, or in other w ords, thatco unsel 's as si sta nce fell bel ow an o bje cti v e s tandard of reaso nab lene ss. Assumin g app ellanth a s dem onst rated def icient assista nce, he m ust 12 

## the n sho w

thatthere is a reason able proba bility that , butfor coun sel's errors, the result wo u ld h a ve b e e n d if

fe re n t

. I n d e t e rm in in g t h e va li d it y o f a p p e ll a n t ' s cl a im o f

in e f fe c t ive 13


## ass is tanc e of couns el, "any jud ic ial re v iew must be hi g hly deferen ti al to t ri al couns el andThom pson , 9 S. W

. 3d a t 813

. 14 I d. 15 See St r

i ckl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 ; J a y n e s v . S ta te , 2 1 6 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 5 1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 16 20 06 , no pe t

. ).

St at e v. Moral es , 25 3 S

. W

. 3d 68 6, 69 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 08 ). 17 Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 3 ; Jaynes , 216 S. W

. 3d a t 851

. 18 M or al es , 253 S. W

. 3d a t 696
- 97. 19 B o n e v . S ta te , 7 7 S .W .3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Thom pson , 9 S. W

. 3d a t 814 ( set t i ng 20 out t hat " i n t he v ast m aj or i t y of cases, t he u nd eve l op ed r ecor d on di r ect app eal wi l l be i nsuff i ci ent f or an ap pe l l an t t o s ati s fy t he du al pron gs of St r i ckl and "); s e e J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1
- 7 2 ( T e x . C r im

. A pp . 19 94 ) ( en ba nc ) ( s t ati ng t ha t " w e m us t pre s um e t ha t co un s el i s be t t er po s i t i on ed t ha n t he ap pe l l ate c ou rt t o j udge t he p r agm at i sm of t he p ar t i cul ar case, and t hat he m ade al l si gni f i cant deci si ons i n t he e xer ci se of r easona bl e pr of essi onal jud gm en t " a nd t hat " [ d] ue t o t he l ack ofev i dence i n t he r ecor d con cer ni ng t r i al 

## 5 av oid the del eter iou s e ff ect s o f hinds ig ht." 14 

## T h e b u rd e n is o n a p p e ll a n tt o p ro ve in e f fe c t i v e a s s is t a n c e o f

co u n s e l b y a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. Appell ant mus t ov er come t he s trong presumpt ion that 15


## couns el' s c onduc t fell w it hin the w ide rang e of r eason abl e professi onal as si sta nce and t hat his ac ti ons coul d be cons ide re d s ound t ri al strateg y . A re viewin g co urt w il l not 16


## secon d-guess legitimate tactical de cisions ma de b y t r i al c ou ns el

. C ou ns el ' s e f fectiveness 17 

## is judged by the tota lity of the represe nta tion, not by isolated acts or om issions. "[U]nless 18 

## there i s a record s uff ic ien t t o demons trate t hat c ounse l' s c onduc t w as not t he productof a s t ra t e gi co r tactical decision , a rev iew ing court shou ld presum e tha t trial counse l's performa nce was constitut iona lly ade quate 'un less the challen ged cond uct w as so out rageous th at no comp ete nt at torne y w ould have engaged in it.'" 19 

## B. A nal ysis An allegatio n of

inef fectiveness must be f irmly foun ded in the record, an d the record must aff ir mati v elyd e m o n st rate t he al leg ed i neffect iv eness . To s how thattr ial co unsel 20counsel ' s r easons" f or t he a l l eg ed i neff ect i v eness, t he co ur t was " unabl e t o con cl ude t hat app el l ant ' s t r i al

c ou ns el ' s pe rform an c e w as de fi c i en t " ) ( i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ).

J a c k s o n v . S ta te , 97 3 S

. W

. 2d 95 4, 95 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 98 ) ( pe r cu ri am ). 21 S e e H a m m o n dv . S ta te , 94 2 S

. W

. 2d 70 3, 71 0 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 19 97 , no w ri t ). 22 See Thom pson , 9 S. W

. 3d a t 813

. 23 R o d rig u e z v . S ta te , 89 9 S

. W

. 2d 65 8, 66 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ) ( en ba nc ). 24 Bone , 7 7 S .W .3 d a t 8 3 5 ; Thom pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 4 ; see Ja ckson , 877 S. W

. 2d a t 771
- 72. 25 See Thom pson , 9 S. W

. 3d a t 813

. 26 

## 6 w as ine ff ect iv e by

fail ing to file a motion to suppress , appell ant has to prov e tha t t he tr ial court would have grant ed th e mo tion. App ellanth as prese nte d no evidence to satisf y this 21 

## burden. M oreov er , t ri al couns el mayhav e decid ed notto file pre- tr ial moti ons as par t of his tr ial st ra teg y . Here, the record i s s il ent reg ardin g tr ial co unsel 's reason for n ot fil ing 22


## a m o t io n t o su p p re s s . T h e re fo re , a p p e l l a n th a s n o tm e th is b u rd e n t o p ro ve in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e of coun sel by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. 23 

## Next, appel lan t arg ues that tr ial co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e bec ause of h is "fail ure to re cog niz e tha t t he pl ea barg ain 's prov is ion for c oncur re nt s entences wa s impos si ble to f u lf il l. " An e s s e n t ia l r e qu is it e t o su c c e s s f u ll y a t t a c k i n g a g u il t y p le a o n in e f fe c t ive ass is tanc e g ro unds is that the a ppel lan t mus t s how thatthe all eg ed defic ien ci es caus ed his pl ea to be u nknow ing and inv olu ntar y . I n this ca se, appel lan t doe s n ot arg ue th at t he 24 

## all eg ed defic ien ci es of his tri al coun sel 's represent ati on caused hi s p lea to be unk now ing and involuntary. T he burden is on appe llant to provide a record that a f f ir m a t ive ly demonst ra tes the all eg ed i neffect iv eness . Therefore, w e c oncl ude t hat a ppel lan t has not 25 

## met hi s b urden t o prov e i neffective assi sta nce of couns el by a preponderance of the ev ide nce. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s s econd i ss ue.

26

## 7 IV. C ONCL US I ON 

## W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.

Do not p ubl is h. T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . 4 7 .2 (b ). 

## Del iv er ed and filed the 8th d ay of Jul y , 201 0.