C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

J UL I AN CARDONA, Ap pe lla nt,
v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 61 -C R

Appea l from 41st District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20060D04272)

O P I N I O N J ulian Cardona a

ppeals his convictions of intoxi cation manslaug hter (Count I ) and intox ication assault (Count I I ). Appellant enter ed a plea of g uilty to e ach count bef ore the jury

and the tr ial court

c on du c te d a

un ita ry pr oc e e din g to d e te rm ine bo th guil t and punis hme nt. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .A NN . art . 2 6. 14 (V e rn on 20 09 ); se e Fram e v . S

tat e , 615 S.W .2d 766, 767 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). The jury found Appe llant guilty

of ea ch count and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a te rm of ten y ear s with respe ct t o Count I and im prisonment for a term of two y e ars wi th r e sp e c t to Count I I . We a ff ir m. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On the e ve nin g of

No ve mbe r 6 , 2 00 5, Ap pe lla nt, F e rn and o T or

re s, Rog e r C ru z, and

Te re sa Her rer a we nt to a party

at a f riend’s house . Appellant drove them in h i s t ru ck an d they arr ived at

aro un d 1 0 p .m. or

11 p. m. Al l four of the m dra nk a lc oh oli c be ve ra g e s and the n lef t ar ound 1 a .m. with Appellant driving

. Torre s sat in the front passe ng er se at while He rre ra a nd Cruz sat in t he re ar seat. The y

planned to drop off Her

rer a first. Appellant was driving fast on a two- lane r oad which had a 30- mile per hour spe ed limit. Torre s told Appe llant to slow down as they approa ched a

curve-2-

beca use he f elt Appellant might lose control. Appellant did lose control of the truck a

nd it flipped over twic e, landingin the front y ard of a re sidence . I nvestig ation conducte d af t er t h e ac cident
reve aled that the ve hicle wa s travelingat a minimum of 51-miles per hour

. Although Appellant and Torre s wer e wea ring seat belts, Cruz and Her rer a wer e not a

nd they
we re e je c te d f ro m th e ve hic le . T or

re s c lim be d o ut a nd ob se rv e d App e lla

nt a dmi ni st eri ngCPR to Her rer a, who wa s n ot breathing. One of Cruz’s leg was pinned unde r the truc k and he w as
scre aming for he lp. Erika Avila a nd her husba

nd hea rd the ac cident and c alled for an ambulanc e befor e g oing outside to he lp. A man trappe d under the truck wa s in pain and scr eaming . Torre s g ot a shovel a nd beg an dig g ing to f

ree Cruz from the truck. Avila he ard the man under neath the tr

uck tell Appellant that the ac cident wa s his fault and ask him, “Why didn’t y ou g ive [me] the truck? See what happe ned now? ” When Appellant told Cruz that Herre ra w as dea d , Cruz said, “See, y ou’re stubborn, stubborn. Well, see y ou didn’t g ive us the truck.” Deputy sheri ff s ar ri v ed at the sc ene a

nd one of the m determined that Herr era was not breathing a

nd did not have a pulse . The de puty sheriff s and fire depar

tment helped extricate Cruz from bene ath the truc k and he w as t aken by ambulance to the hospital and surg ery was pe rfor

med on his left leg . Cruz remained in the hospital for a wee k. The medic al examiner, Dr. J uan Contin, per formed a n autopsy on Her rer a and de termined that sh e ha d mu lti ple inj ur ie s in c lud inga c oll a ps e d c he st d

ue to b ro ke n r ibs , p ulm on ary c on tus ion s,
and sig nif ic ant i nju ri e s to the sp lee n, li ve r, and sma ll a nd larg e bo we l me se nte ry . D r. Con tin conclude d that Her

rer a would not have been a ble t o breathe as a result of t he massive chest injuries and she die d of re spiratory failure befor e she could bleed to de ath from the injuries to her inter nal org ans. As a r esult of these injuries, H err era was be y ond medical he lp.-3-

Appellant wa s taken into custody at t he sce ne and he voluntarily submitt ed to an intoxi ly

zer breath te st. The first test was perf ormed at 2:51 a .m. a

nd the second at 2:54 a .m., a pproxi mately

two hours af ter the a ccide nt. The t es t re s u l t s we re .170 and .172, respe ctively . Appellant testified at trial and a dmitted that he had bee n drinking prior to the ac cident. INEF F ECTIVE ASS ISTANCE I n six issues, Appellant contends he was denied the eff ective assistance of counsel a t trial beca use his attorney

failed to objec t during voir dire and fina l argument to statements made by the pr os e c uto r. Th e sta

nd ard fo r d e te rm ini ngc la ims of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi st ance unde r t he Sixth Am e ndme nt i s th e tw o- ste p a na ly sis a do pte d b y

the Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Court

in S t rickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.C t. 2052, 80 L .Ed.2d 674 (1984). Se e Her na nd e z v . S tat e , 988 S.W .2d 770, 771-72 (Te x .Crim

. App. 1999). Under the f irst prong , the def

endant must show that
c ouns e l’ s p e rf

or manc e wa s d e fi c ie nt t o th e e xten t th a t c ouns e l f a ile d to f un c tio n a s th e “ c ouns e l” g uara nteed by the Six th Amendment. J

ac k so n v . S tate , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Und er t he sec ond prong , the def endant must establish that counsel’ s deficie nt perfor mance prejudice d the def

ense. Strickland , 4 66 U. S. at 68 7, 10 4 S.Ct
. a t 20 64 , 8 0 L .E d. 2d a t 69 3; Jack

son , 877 S.W .2d at 771. Prejudice is established by a showing that there is a rea sonable proba bility that bu t f or c ouns e l’ s unp ro fe ssi on a l e rr or s, the re su lt o f t he pr oc e e din g wo uld

have been dif

fe re nt. Strickland , 4 66 U . S. at 694, 10 4 S .C t. a t 20 68 , 8 0 L .E d. 2d a t 69 8; Jack

son , 877 S .W .2d at 771. This two-prong ed test is used to judg e whe ther c ounsel ’s conduc t so compromised the prope r functioning of the a dversa rial proce ss that the trial produce d unreliable results. Ma lle tt v . S tat e , 65 S.W .3d 59, 63 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Appellate r eview of defe nse counsel’s perf ormanc e is hig hly defe rential a nd presumes that-4-

counsel’s a ctions fell wit hin a wide rang e of r easona ble profe ssional assistance. Ma lle tt , 65 S.W .3d

a t 63 ; Ton g v . S

tat e , 25 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The burde n t o o v er come that p resumpti on falls on the appe llant. See Strick land , 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct . at 2065. Any alleg ation of i neff

ectivene ss must be “firmly founded” in the rec ord. Sa lin as v . S tat e , 163 S.W .3d 734, 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). To defe at the pre sumption of reasona ble profe ssional assistance, the record must aff

irmatively demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 80 8, 81 4 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). I n th e ma jority of ins tanc e s, the re c or d o n d ir e c t a pp e a l is
un de ve lop e d a

nd wi ll n ot s uf

fi c ie ntl y sh owthat c ouns e l’ s r e pr e se ntat ion w a s so de fi c ie nt a nd so lacking in ta ctical or strateg ic decision making as to ove rcome the presumption t h at counsel’s conduct was rea sonable a

nd profe ssional. Bo ne v . S tat e , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). We cannot spec ulate that no plausible profe ssional rea son exi sts for a spe cific a ct or omission. Id

. at 836. I f the re cord is silen t as t o the fa cts, circ umstances, a nd rationale behind an attorney ’s particula r cour se of a ction, we are compelled t o find that the defendant did not rebut the pr esumption that it was a re asonable one. See Thompson , 9 S.W .3d at 814. Although Appellant filed a motion for ne w trial, he did not ra ise the issue of inef fec tive assistance of counse l. Improper Commitme nt Question I n I ssue One, Appellant alleg es that trial counsel should ha ve objected when the prosec utor asked the jury

panel a n improper c ommitm ent question. The prosecutor a sked the jury panel atwopart que stion. First, he aske d the venire members to ra t e the seriousne ss of intox ication

man s la u g h te r o na s c a le o f o n e to te nw it

h o n e b e in g “ it ’ s n o t i mp o rta n t” an d te nb e in g “ it ’ s rea l important.” Second, the prosec utor asked the venire members whe ther they thought they

wer e ther e for punishment, dete rre nce, or reha bilitation.-5-

During voir dire, a

question is pro p er if it seeks to discover a juror’s view s on an issue

a p p li c a b le to the case

. Ba ra

jas v . S tat e , 9 3 S. W.3 d 3 6, 38 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). An oth e rw ise proper question is impermissi ble, howeve r, i f i t attempts to commit the j uror to a pa rticular ve rdict based on pa

rticular f acts. Barajas , 9 3 S. W.3 d at 38 ; S t a n d e f e r v . S t a te , 5 9 S .W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Commi tment que stions ar e those that commit a prospec tive juror to re solve, or to ref rain fr om resolvi ng , an issue a c erta in way afte r lea rning a par

ticular fa ct. Barajas , 93 S.W .3d at 38. Such questions often a sk for a “y es” o r “n o ” an s we r, in which one or both of the possible a nswers commits the jury to r esolving an issue a cer tain way . Id. I n Standefer , the Court of Criminal Appea ls a

rticulated a

two-step test for

deter mining whe n a voir dire question calls for an improper

commitment: (1) I s the question a commitment question, and (2 ) Do es t h e question i n c l u d e o n l y t h o s e f

a c t s t h a t l e a d t o a

v a l i d c h a l l e n g e f

o r c a u s e ? Standefer , 59 S.W .3d at 182. I f the
answe r to the first question is “ y es” a nd the answe r to the sec ond question is “no,” then the que stion is improper. Id . at 182-83. By asking the potential jurors to rate how ser iously they viewed the offe nse of intox ication manslaug hter, the pr osecutor w as attempting to determine the ir views and to e x pose any biases. The prosec utor did not attempt to bind the venire members to r esolve, or ref rain from resolving , an issue

a c e rt a in w a y

a ft e r l e arn ing

a pa rt ic ula r f a c t. T he re ma ind e r o f t he qu e sti on

wa s d e sig ne d to deter mine how ea ch venir e member viewed the purpose of

punishment. This is a leg itimate are a of inq uir y and do e s n ot b ind

the jur y to ret urn a partic ula

r v e rd ic t ba se d o n a

pa rt ic ula r s e ts o f f a c ts. B e c a us e the pr os e c uto r’ s vo ir dir e wa s pr op e r, tr ia l c ouns e l w a s n ot i ne ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto o bje c t. See E x parte Morrow , 952 S.W .2d 530, 536 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)(counse l is not required to objec t if an objec tion would be futile). We over rule I ssue One.-6- Improper Statem ent of Law I n I ssue Two, Appe llant contends t hat t rial court should have obje cted whe n the prosec utor informed the ve nire membe rs that they only had to be a

ble to consider the full rang e of punishment during voir dire a

nd befor e the pr esentation of evidenc e. He argues this had the ef fec t of duping the jury into be lieve that it wa s not r equire d to c onsider the full rang e of punishment wh en as s essi ng punishment. Appellant’s brief does not contain a

ny citations to the rec ord where this statement wa s made. Rule 38.1(i) prov i d es t h at : “T he brie f must contain a c lear and conc ise argument for the contentions made, w ith appropriate citations to authorities and to the rec ord.” T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(i). As an a pp e llate c ourt , it

is n ot o ur ta sk to c omb the re c or d in

an e ff or t to ve ri fy an a pp e lla nt’ s c la ims

. Se e Al v arad o v . S tat e , 912 S.W .2d 199, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Be cause Appellant’s br ief doe s not direct our attention to where the alleg ed er ror oc curr ed, we conclude this iss ue has be en wa ived beca use it is inadequately b ri ef ed. Se e Le db e tte r v . S

tat e , 208 S.W .3d 723, 735 (Tex.App.-- Texarkana

2006, no pet.)(f

ailure to provide rec ord refer ence s resulted in issue being waived) . I ssue Two is overr

uled. Final Argument I n I ssues Three and Four, Appe llant takes issue with trial counse l’s failure to object to two portions of the prosec utor’s final ar g ument. I n his third issue, Appellant argues the prose cutor made an im p r o p e r

ar g u me n t w h e nh e p o in te d to th e v ic ti m’ s mo th e r

an d u r g e d th e ju r y to n o t g ive Appellant probation because it placed a low value on the life of the vi ctim. I n I ssue Four , Appellant contends that trial c ounsel should have objec ted when the prosec utor ref err ed to hea dlines in the
ne ws pa pe r b e c a us e the argume nt u

rg e d th e jur

y to a sse ss p un ish me nt bas ed on c omm un ity expectations. We se t fo rt h t h e challeng ed ar g uments in the context of the prosecutor ’s final-7-

argume nt: Now, my co-c ounsel, he told you give probation. W hat type of value are

you as sig nin g to they ou ng

wom an who was in thi

s cas e ? Y ou ’r e no t assi

gn ing a wh ole lot of value to h er l i

f e. And there’s her mothe r right there. She’s right there. [Emp ha sis a dd e d]. No w, do e s that me an y ou sh ou ld g ive the de fe nd ant 2 0 y e ars in prison? No, but y ou’ve g ot to assign a value to her

daug hter’s life

. No w, wh a t do we have he re ? Th e fu ll ra ng e of punis hme nt is p ro batio n a ll the way up to 20 y ear s in prison. And when we were in voir dire, I -- we spoke about this. How serious is this cr ime? Every body here said this was an e ight or a nine or a 10 on a 10 point sca le. This is serious. This is a s serious as a hear t beat or he art attack. It doesn’t g et any

more ser ious. You know why ? Be cause somebody is dead. Somebody

is dead. Somebody

is gone

. No w - - s o it ’s a

se ri ou s c a se , th e mos t se ri ou s c a se in t his range. S o in my opinion, that means y ou start at the hi g h end of 20 y ear s. Twenty y ear s in prison and

-- and work down if y ou have to. Why shouldn’t y ou g ive 20 y ear s in prison? He’ s y oung . Okay . He’ s remorse ful. Okay . Those ar e re asons not to give 20 y ear s, but yo un e e d t o s t artt h e r e an d

w o r k yo u r w ay d o w n . O k ay? Now, I think in a case l ike this, prison is the messag e that y ou need to be sending . Now, I

can’ t -- the J udg e tol d y ou what the lawy ers say is not evidence . I t’s just arg ument. My opinion doe sn’t matter. Your opinion is what matters. If y ou ’r e ok ay with thehe ad

lin es in thepa

pe r o n a ny

c as e, m an k

ill s o ne , h ur ts a no the r, jur

y gives probati on. W

ell, there’s nothing I can say to that. I disagree. I think y ou need to send a stronger message. [E mp h a s is a d d e d ]. Pr op e r j ur y argume nt i nc lud e s f

our a re a s: (1 ) s umm a tio n o f t

he e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l, (2 ) r e a so na

ble de du c tio n d

ra wn fr om t hat e vid e nc e , ( 3) ans we r to the op po sin g c ouns e l’ s a rgume nt, or (4) a plea

for law enfor ceme nt. J

ac k so n v . S tat e , 17 S.W .3d 664, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) . To d et er m i n e whether the pr osecutor ma de an imprope r ar g ument, we must consider the entire

ar g ument, not merely

isolated sentenc es. Ro dr igu e z v . S tat e , 9 0 S. W. 3 d

3 4 0 , 3 6 4 ( T e x. A p p . --El Pa so 20 01 , p e t. r e f’ d) . T he pr os e c uto r m ay e xpre ss a n o pin ion on the se ri ou s n a tur e of

the of fe ns e by c on tr a sti ng it w ithoth e r c a se s o r c ri me s in g e ne ra l, a s lo nga s th e pr os e c uto r d oe s n ot d e lve int o the details of the othe r ca ses or c rimes. Id . The prose cutor m ay als o make a plea f or law-8-

enfor ceme nt. Bo rja n v . S

tat e , 78 7 S.W. 2d 53 , 5 5- 56 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ); Rodriguez , 90 S.W .3d

a t 36 4. A p le a

fo r l aw e nf

or c e me nt m ay

take many fo rm s, on e of

wh ic h is to a

rgue the re la tio ns hip betw ee n t h e jury ’s ver dict and the de terre nce of specific crimes or

crime in g ener al. Borjan , 787 S.W. 2d a t 55 . T he State may

a lso re min d the jur

y of the e ff e c t th a t it s v e rd ic t ma

y have on sp e c if ic seg ments of the community or the c ommunity

in ge nera l. Id . at 56. Thus, t he S tate may ask the jury to repre sent the community or to send a me ssag e to the community

. Ro bb ins v . S tat e , 145 S.W .3d 306, 315 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2004, pet. r ef’ d). But the State may not argue that the c ommunity or a spec ific seg ment of the c ommunity ex pects or de mands a pa rticular ve rdict or a

particula r punishment. Borjan , 7 87 S.W. 2d a t 56 ; Rodriguez , 90 S.W .3d at 365. The prose cutor’s a

rg ument that the ju ry s h o u ld not give pr obation beca use it place d a low value on the victim’s life is a proper plea f or law e nforc ement. The argument reminded the jury of the seriousne ss of the offe nse and the value of human life. The prosec utor did not make an imprope r argument by ref

err ing to the potential headlines if the jury g rante d Appellant probation or by asking the jury to send a strong er me ssag e. The prosecutor did not arg ue that the c ommunity expected or demande d a par

ticular sente nce. T his is a permissible argument. An attorney is not ineffec tive for failing to object to permissible arguments. Se e Ri c ha rd s v . S tat e , 912 S.W .2d 374, 379 (Tex.App.-- Houston [14t h Dist.] 1995, pet. re f’d) . We overrule I ssues Thre e and F our. I n h is f if th i ssu e , App e lla

nt al le g e s tria l cou

rt wa s ine ff

e c tiv e be c a

us e he fa ile d to ob

je c t to the pr os e c uto r’ s f

ina l ar g ume nt that App e lla nt wa s “f a lli ngdo wn

dr un k” a t th e tim e of

the a c c ide nt. Ap pe lla nt’ s b ri e f d oe s n ot c on ta in any c itatio n to the re c or d sh ow ing wh e re the pr os e c uto r m a de thi s statement. Rule 38.1(i) pr ovides that: “The br ief must contain a clear and conc ise argument for the contentions made, w ith appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1(i).-9-

Be cause Appellant’s br ief doe s not direct our attention to w h er e the alleg ed er ror oc curr ed, we conclude this iss ue has be en wa ived bec ause it is inadequately briefe d. See Ledbe tter , 208 S.W .3d at 735 (failure to provide recor d ref ere nces r esulted in issue being waived) . I ssue Five is overrule d. I n his six th a

nd final issue, Appellant argues that the combined eff ect of all of the instance s
o f in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e s e t f o rth in th e f ir s t f iv e is s u e s w ar

r an ts g iv in g A p p e ll an t a

n e w tr ia l. We have fo un d n o me ri t in any of the argume nts ra ise d in the fi rs t fi ve iss ue s. Th e re is s ome a uth or ity that a numbe r o f e rr or s ma

y be fo un d h arm fu l in

the ir c umu la tiv e effect , b ut t

he re is n o a

uth or ity holding that non-er

rors may in the ir cumulative ef fec t cause err or. Se e Cha mb e rla in v . S tat e , 998 S.W. 2d 23 0, 23 8 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Oz un a v . S tat e , 199 S.W .3d 601 , 6 1 3 n . 7 (Tex.App.-- Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.)(finding there was no c umulative err or in co n t ex t of ineff ective assistance of counse l claim). We there fore overr ule I ssue S ix and affirm t he judgment of the tria l
c ourt
. September 30, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)