TERRY JEAN GRANT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed November 30, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-01352-CR
............................
TERRY JEAN GRANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F05-51740-LW
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        Appellant appeals her conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. After a jury found appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
        At trial, the State presented evidence that police observed a person purchasing cocaine from appellant's apartment. A short time later, a young girl came out of the apartment to take trash to a dumpster. When she did, she left the door wide open. Officers observed crack cocaine through the open door. Officers entered and seized 18.4 grams of cocaine.
        Appellant testified to a completely different sequence of events. According to appellant, police knocked on her door telling her they were in the middle of a shoot-out and asked if they could “check” her apartment because they had seen a guy with a gun run that way. The police went into her apartment and started asking her questions about men in the neighborhood. They told her she had to work for them. Police then searched her apartment. She denied selling drugs out of her apartment and denied any knowledge of the drugs in her apartment. She speculated that her former boyfriend may have left them in her apartment. After hearing the evidence, a jury found appellant guilty with intent to deliver cocaine. This appeal followed.
        In her sole point of error, appellant contends her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the drug evidence. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must show (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). The record must be sufficiently developed to overcome the strong presumption of reasonable assistance. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In the absence of evidence of counsel's reasons for the challenged conduct, we will assume that it was part of counsel's strategy and will not conclude that the conduct was deficient unless the conduct was so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d.at 814. Because the record rarely reveals trial counsel's strategy, the proper procedure for raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is almost always by habeas corpus. Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
        Appellant did not file a motion for new trial asserting ineffective assistance. Therefore, no record has been developed to establish why counsel did not did not file a motion to suppress. While the record does contain many facts and circumstances surrounding the officer's entry into and search of the apartment, the State was never called upon to present evidence to justify the search. Nor does the record show what facts appellant informed counsel of before trial such that he should have filed a motion to suppress. We conclude appellant cannot overcome the strong presumption of effective assistance of counsel. We resolve the sole issue against appellant and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
 
                
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
081352F.U05