1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 08- 119- CR 2 - 08 - 12 0- CR
D A N I EL ELI A R A N D A A / K /A A PP E L LANT DAN I E LAR AND A V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 213TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A p p e l l a n t D a n i e l E l iA ran d a a/k /a D a n i e l A r a n d a ap p e a l s h i s tw o c o n v i c ti o n s fo r a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry . S ee Te x. Pe na l Cod e Ann. § 2 9 .0 32 ... A ggr ava t ed r obbe r y i s a f i r st deg r ee f el ony t hatca r r i esa puni sh m ent

r a nge o f fi v e t o ni ne t y- ni ney e a r s ’ c on f i ne m e nt . Te x. Pe na l Cod e Ann . §§ 1 2 .3 2 (a ), 2 9 .0 3 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).

3 ... S ee T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 2 6 .1 3 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 2I n one poi nt , appel l ant contends t hat hi s t r i al coun sel w as per s e i n e ffe c ti v e b yfa i l i n g to re q u e s t a re p o rte r’sre c o rd . W e a ffir m . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts I n 2 00 2, a Tar r antC oun t y gr and j ur y i ssued tw o in d ict m ent s agai nst app el l ant ; ea ch i ndi ct m entch a rged hi m w i t h a t t em pt ed ca pi t al m ur deran d agg r ava t ed r obbe r y. The i ndi ct m ent s al l ege d t hati n Fe br uary 2002, ap pel l ant sh ott w o i ndi vi dua l s w i t h a gun w hi l e c om m i t t i ng r obbe r y. I n Febr uar y 20 03 , af t er t he S t at e w ai ved t he at t em pt ed capi ta l m u rder char ges and t he t r i al courtpro p er l y gave w r i t t en adm oni shm ent s, 3ap pel l ant ent er ed j udi ci al con f es si ons , w ai ved hi s con st i t ut i ona l an d s t at ut ory r i ght s, an d pl ed gui l t yt o t h e t wo a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r yc h a r g e s . T h e t r i a l c o u rtd e f e r r ed adj udi ca t i on ofap pel l ant ’ s gui l tan d pl ac ed hi m on c om m uni t y s upe rvi si on f or s e v e n y e a rs . A m o n g th e te rm s o f h i s c o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n , th e t r i a l c o u rt
r equi r ed appel l antt o com m i tno f urt her of f enses, avoi d i l l egal use ofcont r ol l ed subst ances ( and subm i tt o te st i ng and out - pat i entt r eat m entr el at ed t o such4 ... I n Sept em beran d Novem ber2004 , t he t r i al cou rt su ppl em ent ed t he

c o n d i ti o n s o f a p p e l l a n t’sc o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n .

5 ... D ur i ng or al ar gum ent , ap pel l ant ’ s cou ns el c o nce ded t hatap pel l ant f ai l ed dr ug t est s.

6 ... H andw r i t t en notesi n t he cl er k’ s re c o r d i ndi cat e t hatappel l antpl ed t r ue. Thi s i ndi cat i on i s support ed by do cum ent s att ached t o appel l ant ’ s br i ef a n d b yap p e l l a n t’ s c o u n se l ’s sta tem e n ts d u ri n g o ral arg u m e n t. 3 su bs t anc es ) , an d r epo rtm ont hl y t o t he Tar r antCount y c om m uni t y s upe rvi si on of f i ce. 4 I n Ju ne 200 5, t he St at e f i l ed pet i t i ons t o pr oce ed t o t he adj udi ca t i on of app el l ant ’ s agg r ava t ed r obbe r y c har ges , al l egi ng t hat app el l ant had vi ol at ed t he t er m s of hi s com m uni t y super vi si on byusi ng cocai ne, 5 fai l i n g to c o m p l e te o u tp a t ie n t t r e a t m e n t , a n d f a ilin g t o r e p o rt . In N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 , w h ile a id e d b yh is tri a l a tto rn e y , J e re m y B a k e r, a p p e l l a n t p l e d tru e to th e a l l e g a ti o n s i n th e S ta te ’s pet i t i ons. 6The t r i al courtdet er m i ned t hatt he S t at e’ s al l e g a ti ons w er e t r ue, f oun d appel l antgui l t y oft he aggr avate d ro b b er i es, and sent enced hi m t o t en y e a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t. A p p e lla n tin it ia llyn e g le c t e d t o f ile a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l; h o w e v e r , in N ove m ber2006 , ap pel l antf i l ed an app l i ca t i on f or a w r i t of hab ea s cor pus i n t he t r i al court , contendi ng t hat Baker pr ovi ded hi m w i t h i nef f ect i v e a s s ist ance7 ... A j udg m entent er ed i n M ay 20 08 asses sed a part i al l y pr obated

suspensi on of Baker’ s l aw l i cense f orhi s negl ect i ng t o pr ovi de m eani ngful l egal se rvi ce s on a cl i ent’s b e h a l f ( f ori ns t anc e, hef ai l ed t o r et ur n pho ne ca l l s and fa i l e d to m e e t w i th th e c l i e n t). W e rej e c t a p p e l l a n t’si m p l i c a ti o n th a t B a k e r’s con duc ti n t hatca seaf f ec t s ouran al ys i s ofw het herh e p ro v i d e d e f f ec t i ve a ss i sta n c e to a p p e l l a n t.

8 ... A p p e lla n tra is e d n o n e o ft h e s e g r o u n d s f o rin e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e in t hi s app ea l ; i ns t ea d, t he so l e a l l ega t i on ofi nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e c onc er ns B ak er ’ s f ai l ur e t o r equ es t a r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d of t he hea r i ng on th e S ta te ’s pet i t i ons t o adj udi cat e. 4 dur i ng hi s adj udi cat i on pr oceedi ng. S peci f i cal l y, appel l antassert ed t hatBaker 7
r ef used t o r et ur n hi s pho ne cal l s, m i si nf or m ed hi m about hi s pot ent i al sent ence u p o n r e v o c a t i o n , fai l e d to p rep a re o r di sc u ss ap p e l l a n t’ s d e fen se , fai l e d to pr epar e w i t nesses f ort he hear i ng on t he S t at e’ s pet i t i ons, and f ai l ed t o f i l e a n o t ic e o fa p p e a l. 8 I n Fe br uary 2008, t he t r i al cou rten t er ed an or derr ec om m end i ng t hatt he C ourtofC r i m i nal A ppeal s shoul d gr antappel l antan out - of

- tim e d i r ectappeal
a n d t hat i ts h o u l d t h e n d i s mi s s a p p e l l a n t ’ s h a b e a s c l a i ms a s p r e ma t u r e . On M a rc h 5 , 2 0 0 8 , th e C o u rt o f C ri m i n a l A p p e a l s a c c e p te d th e tri a l c o u rt’s
r e c o m m e n d a ti o n s a n d o rd e re d th a t a p p e l l a n t c o u l d a p p e a l . E x p a rte Aranda , N o s . A P -7 5 ,8 6 0 , A P -7 5 ,8 6 1 , 2 0 0 8 W L 6 4 4 0 5 8 , a t * 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . M a r. 5, 20 08 ) . A ppel l antt i m el y per f ect ed t hese appeal s.5

I n M a r c h 2 0 0 8 , a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u rt r e p o rt e r t o p r epar e a re p o rte r’sre c o rd o f th e p ro c e e d i n g s re l a te d t o t h e h e a ri n g o n th e S ta te ’s p e ti ti o n s to a d j u d i c a te . I n J u n e 2 0 0 8 , w e re c e i v e d a n o te fro m th e c o u rt
r eport erst at i ng t hathe di d not m ake a r ecor d oft hose pr oceedi ngs; w e not i f i ed t he part i es t hatno r eport er ’ s r ecor d i s avai l abl e. I neff ect i ve A ssi st ance ofC oun sel I n hi s so l e p oi nt , ap pel l ant ar gue s t hat Bake r pr ovi ded hi m w i t h i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e b y f ai l i ng t o r equ es t a r ec or d oft he hea r i ng on t he St at e’ s pet i t i ons t o adj udi cat e, w hi ch deni es hi m a m eani ngful appeal . A n appel l antm ay r ai se a c l ai m of i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e ofco uns el ata puni sh m enthe ar i ng a f t ert he9 ... W e m u s t l i m i t o u r a n a l y s i s a n d h o l d i n g i n th i s c a s e to th e tri a l c o u rt’s

puni sh m entde ci si on. Beca us e i toc cur r ed i n 2005, w e d o notha ve j ur i sd i ct i on to re v i e w th e tri a l c o u rt’sa d j u d i c a t i o n o fa p p e l l a n t’sg u i l t o n h i s ro b b e ry cha r ges , t hough w e d o ha ve j ur i sd i ct i on t o re vi ew t he puni sh m entde ci si on re l a te d to th a t a d j u d i c a ti o n . S e eD a vi s v. S tate , 195 S. W . 3d 708, 710– 11 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Sa n c h ez v. S tate , 222 S . W . 3d 85, 90 n. 5 ( Tex. A pp. — Tyl er2006 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. ) ( not i ng t hatco urt s m a y “ re v i ew t he i ss ue of i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco uns el asi tpe rt ai nst o m att er s su bs equ ent to th e tri a l c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n to p ro c e e d w i th a d j u d i c a ti o n ” ); T a tum v. S tate , 166 S. W . 3d 362, 364 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2005, p e t . r e f ’ d) . E f f e c t i veJ un e 15, 200 7, t he l egi sl at ur e a m end ed t he c odeofcr i m i nalpr oce dur e t o om i tt he p rov i sion th a t n o a p p e a l m a y b e tak e n fr o m a tr i a l co u rt ’s ad j u d i c a ti o n o f gu i l t. T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 4 2 .1 2 § 5 (b ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); see D ur gan v. S tate , 2 4 0 S .W .3 d 8 7 5 , 8 7 8 n .1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).

6 t r i a l c ou rt a dj ud i c a t e s g u i l t. 9 S e eGram m er v. S tate , 268 S. W . 3d 774, 777 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 8 , p e t. fi l e d ). To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , app el l ant m us ts how by a pr epo nde r anc e o f t he evi den ce t hat hi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l bel ow t he
s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m s a n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , but f or cou ns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i al w oul d ha ve b e e n d i f f e re n t. Str

i ckl and v. W ashi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4(1 9 8 4 ); Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 163 S . W . 3d 734, 740 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); Ma lle t t v. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).10 ... H ow eve r , a si ngl e e gr e g i ouser r orofom i ss i on orco m m i ss i on by

c o u n s e l m a yc o n s ti tu te i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d a t813. 7 I n e val uat i ng t he ef f ec t i ven es s of cou ns el unde r t he f i r st pr ong, w e l ook t o t he t ot al i t y of t he r epr es ent at i on 10 and t he part i cul ar ci r cum st ances ofeach
c a s e . Thomps on , 9 S . W . 3d at81 3. Th e i ssue i s w het hercounsel ’ s ass i st ance
w a s re a s o n a b l e u n d e r a l l th e c i rc u m s ta n c e s a n d p re v a i l i n g p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s a t th e ti m e o f th e a l l e g e d e rro r. See Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t 688–8 9, 104 S . C t . at2065 . Revi ew of cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on i s hi ghl y de f er ent i al , an d t he
r e v ie w in g c o u rtin d u lg e s a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t io n t h a t c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c t f e ll w it h in
a w i d e ra n g e o f r e a s o n a b l e re p re s e n ta ti o n . Sal i nas , 163 S. W . 3d a t740; Ma l le tt, 65 S. W . 3d at63. A r evi ew i ng c o u rt w i l l r ar el y bei n a pos i t i on on d ir e c ta p p e a l t o f a ir lye v a lu a t e t h e m e r it s o fa n in e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e c la im . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813– 14. “ I n t he m aj or i t y ofca se s, th e re c o r d on di r ec t app ea l i s unde vel ope d and ca nnotad equ at el y r ef l ec tt he m ot i vesbe hi nd t r i al counsel ’ s ac tio n s . ” Sal i nas , 163 S . W . 3d at740 ( quot i ng Ma l le tt, 65 S . W . 3d at63 ) . To ov er com e t he pr esum pt i on of r easonabl e pro fe s s ional
as si st anc e, “ anyal l ega t i on ofi nef f ec t i ven es s m us tbef i r m l y f ounde d i n t he
r ecor d, and t he r ecor d m ustaf f i r m at i vel y dem onst r at e t he al l eged i nef f ect i veness. ” Id. ( quot i ng Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at813) . I ti s not8

appr opr i at e f oran appel l at e courtt o si m pl y i nf eri nef f ect i ve assi st ance based
u p o n u n c l e a r p o rti o n s o f th e re c o rd . Ma ta v. S tate , 2 2 6 S . W . 3 d 4 25, 432 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e se c o n d p ron g o f Str i ckl and re q u i re s a s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’se rro rs
w e r e s o s e r i o u s t h a t t h e yd e p r iv e d t h e d e f e n d a n to fa f a ira n d re lia b le t r ia l. S tri ckl a n d , 466 U . S. at687, 104 S . Ct . a t 2 0 6 4 . In ot herw or ds , ap pel l ant
m u s t s h o w th e re i s a re a s o n a b l e p ro b a b i l i t y t h a t, b u t fo r c o u n s e l ’s
u n p rofe ss i o n a l erro rs, t h e res u l t of th e p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. Id. at 6 9 4 , 1 0 4S . C t. at 2 0 6 8 . A rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty i s a p rob a b i l i ty
s u fficie n t to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e o u tc o m e . Id. The ul t i m at e f ocu s of
ouri nqui r y m us tbeon t he f unda m ent al f ai r nes s of t he pr oce edi ng i n w hi ch t he
re s u l t i s b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . Id. a t 6 9 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. a t 2 0 7 0 . I ft he ca sel aw ev al uat i ng c ou n s e l ’s con duc ti s unc l ea roruns ett l ed,
a p p e l l a n t i s n o t e n ti tl e d to re l i e f. S ee Ex parte Welch , 981 S. W . 2d 183, 184 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ) . A l so, w her e t he r ecor d i s notsuf f i ci ent l y devel oped to a l l o w u s to d o m o re th a n s p e c u l a tea s to th e s tra te g i e s o f c o u n s e l , w e c a n n o t s u s ta i n a n i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m . S e eD o wn s v. S tate , 244 S .W .3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. re f’d ). A courtr eport erm us t g e n e ral l y m ake a f ul l r ecor d ofal l pr oceedi ngs. T e x . R . A p p . P . 1 3 .1 ; s e e Vel azqu ez v. S tate , 2 2 2 S. W . 3d 551, 556 ( Tex.11 ... P a rti e s m a y a g re e o n a s ta te m e n t o f th e c a s e i n l i e u o f a re p o rte r’s

re c o rd ; h o w e v e r, su c h a s ta te m e n t h a s n o t b e e n s u b m i tte d i n th i s c a s e . S ee Te x. R. App . P. 34. 3. 9 A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.). 11 H ow eve r , t o pr es erve er r or re l a te d to a c o u rt re p o rte r’sfa i l u re to d o s o , a d e fe n d a n t m u s t o bj e c t. V al le v. S tate , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 8

– 0 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Vel azquez , 222 S .W .3 d a t 5 5 6

– 5 7 ; Brosse tte v. S tate , 9 9 S . W . 3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 5 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a r k a n a 2 0 0 3 , p e t . d is m ’d ) ( h o ld in g t h a tt h e a p p e l l a n tf o r f e it e d h is
c o m p l a i n t a b o u t th e re p o rte r’s fa i l u re to re c o rd th e tri a l c o u rt’sre a d i n g o f a j u ry char ge because of a f ai l ur e t o obj ect ) . A ppel l antconcedes t hathe w as r equi r ed t o obj ec tt o t he exc l us i on ofa r ec or d , a n d h e a l so co nce dest hatt her e i s no i n d i c a ti o n h e d i d so o r t h a t he ex e rci se d d u e d i l i g e n c e i n req u e sti n g tha t a
re c o rd b e m a d e . S e eCh e ekv. S tate , 65 S . W . 3d 72 8, 73 0 ( Tex . A pp. — W aco 200 1, no p et . ) ( exp l ai ni ng t he r equ i r em entofduedi l i gen cei n r equ es t i ng a r eport er ’ s r ecor d) . H e cl a im s , how ever , t hatBaker ’ s f ai l ur e t o m ake such an obj ect i on orexer ci se such di l i gence am oun t ed t o perse i nef f ect i ve assi st ance b e c a u s e itd e p r iv e d h im o fa n o p p o rt u n it yt o e v a lu a t e p o s s ib le e r r o r s a tt r ia l, t h e r e f o r e ro b b in g h im o fa m e a n in g f u l a p p e a l. I n G o nza les v. S tate , t h e H o u s t o n (F ir s tD is t r ic t ) C o u rto fA p p e a ls
r es ol ved an ap pel l ant ’ s cl ai m t hat hi s t r i al cou ns el w as i nef f ec t i ve bec aus e h e12 ... T h a t sa m e co u rth a s s i n c e rei tera ted tha t t h e “fa il u r e to re q u e st a

courtr eport erf orsom e phase oft r i al does notconst i t ut e i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of coun sel per se. ” W i l l i a m s v. S tate , No. 01- 94- 00688

- CR, 1995 W L6274 7, at*1 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] Fe b. 16, 1 9 9 5 , p e t . r ef ’ d) ( not d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 10 f ai l ed t o r equ es tt hat a r ec or d be m ade of voi r di r e. 732 S. W . 2d 67, 68 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 1987 , no p et . ) . The cou rt not ed t hat t he app el l ant al l ege d no sp ec i f i c har m f r om hi s cou ns el ’ s ac t i on ot hert han f ai l ur e t o pr es erve a p o s s i b l e e rro r. Id. T h e c o u rtt hen r ef used t o hol d t hat“f ai l ur e t o r equest
r ec or dat i on o f v o i r d i r e i s pers e i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco uns el r equ i r i ng r eve r sa l be ca us e h ar m ha s notbe en s h o w n , a n d an ap pel l at e c ourtca nnot
s p e c u l a te a s to w h a t m a yo r m a yn o t h a v e tra n s p i re d a t tri a l .” 12 Id. S i m i l ar l y, i n L op ez v. S tate , t he app el l antco nt end ed t hathe rco u n s e l ’s pe r f or m a nc e w a s d e f i c i e ntf orf a i l i ng t o r e qu e s tt r a ns c r i pt i on o fv oi rd i r e . 838 S. W . 2d 758, 760 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st i1992 , no pe t . ) . The C or pus C h ri sti C o u rto f A p p e a l s h e l d tha t “[w ]i th o u t m o re, w e d o n o t be l i e v e fai l u re to
r e q u e s tt r a n s c r ip t io n o fv o ird ir e isin e f f e c t iv e a s s i s t a n c e o fc o u n s e l per se . Som e i nj ury r es ul t i ng f r om t he f ai l ur e t o r equ es t t r ans cr i pt i on m us t be r ai se d by appel l anton appeal . ” Id. ; se eRe yn a v. S tate , 434 S . W . 2d 362, 364 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 19 68 ) (e x p la ini ng t hatt her e i s no r ever si bl e er r orw her e an

“ a p p e l l a n t fa i l s to s p e c i fya n ye rro r to w h i c h th e tra n s c ri p ti o n o f th e c o u rt13 ... A ppel l anthas si m i l ar l y not ci t ed us t o any such cases, norhave w e

f ound any . 11 re p o rte r’sn o te s . . . w o u l d b e re l e v a n t” ); Green v. S tate , 841 S. W . 2d 926, 927 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 1 9 9 2 , n o p e t.); Sm ithv. S tate , 751 S. W . 2d 902, 9 0 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 8 8 , n o p e t.); se ealso A l lenv. S tate , N o . 0 2 -0 3 -0 0 2 0 1 -C R , 2 0 0 4W L3 9 3 2 5 1 , a t * 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth M a r. 4, 20 04 , pet. re f’ d) ( m em . op. , notdesi gnated f orpubl i cat i on) ( over r ul i ng an i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e cl ai m bec aus e, i n pa rt , t he app el l antdi d not“ pr ovi de any c a se l a w d e m o n strati n g tha t a c o u n se l ’s fai l u re to req u i re a co u rtrep o rt e r t o re c o rd p u n i s h m e n t p ro c e e d i n g s c o n s ti tu te s i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e ” ). 13 A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t s p e c i fi e d a n y a l l e g e d e rro r to w h i c h t h e re p o rte r’s
r ecor d i n t hi s case w oul d have been r el eva n t ; r at her , he has onl y contended t hatt he absence oft he r ecor d pr ecl uded hi m f r om f i ndi ng a possi bl e er r or . Li ke th e ca se s c i ted ab o v e , w e h o l d tha t su c h a c o n ten ti o n i s i n su ffi c i e n t t o est abl i sh i nef f ect i ve assi st ance o fcounsel . Speci f i cal l y, w e concl ude t hat
w i t hou ta desi gnated er r ort o w hi ch t he r eport er ’ s r ecor d had r el e vance, a p p e l l a n t ca n n o t sh o w a re a so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t, b u t f o r B a k e r’ s fa i l u re to
r equ es ta r ec or d, t he t r i al cou rt ’ s puni sh m entde ci si on a f t erhi s adj udi ca t i on of14 ... W e not e t h a t th e speci f i c puni shm entdeci si on m ade by t he t r i al

cou rt
— t en yea r s’ co nf i nem ent
— i s att he l ow eren d oft he f i ve t o ni net y- ni ne y e a r s p e c tru m a v a i l a b l e to th e c o u rt.

15 ... Though ap pel l antl abe l ed hi s onl y poi nt of er r or as a cha l l eng e t o t he e ffe c ti v e n e s s o f h i s c o u n s e l , th e b o d y o f h i s b ri e f a l s o d i s c u s s e s ru l e 3 4 .6 (f). 12 g u i l t w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. 14 See Str i ckl and , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4S . C t.
a t 2 0 6 8 . A p p e lla n ta ls o c o n t e n d s t h a t h e s h o u ld b e g r a n t e d a n e w t r ia l o n t h e b a s is ofr ul e o f app el l at e pr oce dur e 34. 6( f ) , and he ci t es se ver al ca se s r el at ed t o t he
r equi r em ent s oft hatr ul e. 15Tex. R . A pp. P. 34 . 6( f ) . R ul e 34 . 6( f ) st at es t hat [ a] n a ppe l l anti s ent i t l ed t o a ne w t r i al unde rt he f ol l ow i ng ci r cum st ances: (1 ) i f th e a p p e l l a n t h a s ti m e l yre q u e s te d a re p o rte r's r ec or d; (2 ) if , w it h o u t t h e a p p e lla n t ’s f a u lt , a s ig n if ic a n te x h ib it ora si gni f i cantport i on o f t he courtr eport er ’ s not es and r ec or dsha s bee n los tor de s tro yed or — i ft he pr oce edi ngsw er e e l ec t r oni ca l l y r ec or ded

— a s i gni f i ca nt port i on oft he r ec or di ng ha s bee n los tor destroye d or i s i naud i bl e; ( 3) i ft he l

ost , destroyed, o r i n a udi bl e p ort i on oft he r eport er’s recor d, ort he los tor destroye d e x h ib it , is nec es sa r y t o t he app ea l ’ s r es ol ut i on; an d ( 4 ) i ft he lo st

, destroye d ori nau di bl e p ort i on oft he r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d c ann otber epl ac ed by a gr ee m entof t he part i es, ort he los t or destroye d exh i bi tca nnotbe r epl ac ed ei t herby a g re em entoft he part i esorw i t h a13 c o p yd e t e r m in e d b yt h e t r ia l c o u rtt o a c c u r a t e ly d u p l i c a te w i th rea so n a b l e ce rt a i n ty th e o ri g i n a l ex h i b i t. Id. (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); se eY a tesv. S tate , 1 S .W .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 7 8 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p e t . r e f ’d ). A p p e lla n tc a n n o ts a t is f yt h e re q u ir e m e n t s o fru le 34. 6( f ) be ca us e h e c ann ots how t hatan y po rt i on oft he r ec or d r el at ed t o t he adj udi ca t i on he ar i ng w asl os torde st r oye d; r at her , head m i t s t hat no r ec or d of th e p ro c e e d i n g w a s m a d e . S e eW i l l i a m s v. S tate , 937 S . W . 2d 479, 486 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 19 96 ) ( anal yzi ng f or m erappel l at e pr ocedu r e r ul e 50 ( e) , w hi ch al so con ce r ned l os torde st r oye d r ec or ds , and hol di ng t hatw hen “ t he com pl ai ni ng part y c ann ots how t hatt he cou rtre p ort erev err ec or ded t he m i ss i ng p ro c e e d i n g s , h e i s n o t e n ti tl e d to a n e w tri a l ” ); se ealso K i l lo ughv. S tate , N o. 04- 07- 00762

- CR, 2008 W L5062 86, a t*1 ( Te x. App . — Sa n Ant on i o Fe b. 27, 200 8, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op ., n o tde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( app l yi ng t he W illia m s d e c i s i o n to ru l e 3 4 .6 (f)). T h e re fo re , w e a l s o rej e c t a p p e l l a n t’s
con t ent i on t hatt he t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm ents houl d ber eve r se d on t hi s gr ound. Fort hese r easons, w e over r ul e appel l ant ’ s sol e i ssue. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a p p e l l a n t’so n l yi s s u e , w e a f f i rm th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.14 T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N an d M C C O Y, JJ. ; an d W I LL I A M BRI G H A M , J. (Seni or J u s ti c e , R e ti re d , S i ttin g b yA s s i g n m e n t). DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 5, 2009