LEEANN HALEY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Kleberg County

NUMBER 13-02-033-CR

 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
LEEANN HALEY, Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Baird (1)

Appellant was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record. A jury convicted appellant of a lesser included misdemeanor offense and assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). This appeal follows an earlier abatement of these proceedings wherein we ordered the trial judge to appoint new counsel and permit appellant to file a motion for new trial. Currently, appellant raises three points of error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I. Procedural Posture.

The State has not filed a reply brief. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.3, the State's reply brief is not required before we may consider and decide this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.3. When confronted with this situation, we treat the State's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Siverand v. State, 89 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). Pursuant to Siverand, we will make an independent examination of the merits of appellant's points of error and any opposing arguments are limited to those advanced by the State in the trial court. Id.

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Each point of error is centered around the trial judge's denial of appellant's motion for new trial, which raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The first point of error alleges the trial judge erred in denying the motion, and the second and third points of error raise the claims raised in the motion for new trial. As these points of error are intertwined, they will be considered jointly.

A. Authority.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must prove (1) that counsel's representation or advice fell below objective standards of reasonableness; and (2) the result of the proceeding would have been different but for trial counsel's deficient performance. Id. at 688-92. The defendant bears the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel "must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Generally, when the record is silent as to counsel's motivations for tactical decisions, an appellant cannot overcome the "strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonable." Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

When claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are raised on appeal following the denial of a motion for new trial, we analyze the contentions as a challenge to the denial of that motion. Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In such circumstances, we review the Strickland test through an abuse of discretion standard and reverse only if the denial of the motion for new trial was arbitrary or unreasonable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that ruling. Id. at 208 (holding appropriate standard of review for ineffective assistance claim in motion for new trial is abuse of discretion).

B. Failure to Secure the Testimony of Mary Cano.

The second point of error contends counsel was ineffective in failing to call Mary Cano as a witness for appellant. Appellant's defensive theory at trial was that she did not knowingly make a false entry, namely that her husband was not employed, in a government record. This was the culpable mental state required to convict appellant of the lesser included offense. Appellant's theory was that Cano, with the Texas Workforce Commission, told appellant and her husband that her husband's position as a substitute school teacher was not considered employment. We reject this claim for two reasons.

First, as noted above, appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a record that "affirmatively demonstrate[s] the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. Therefore, in the context of this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must demonstrate what the testimony of Cano would have been. However, Cano did not testify at the motion for new trial hearing. At that hearing, the following exchange occurred:

MFNT COUNSEL (2): Can you say with any certainty what Ms. Cano's testimony would have been? (3)

 

APPELLANT: No, I don't know for sure what it would have been.

 

MFNT COUNSEL: Do you think if she had been brought in to testify that could have possibly changed the outcome of your trial?

APPELLANT: Yes.

 

MFNT COUNSEL: You think that possibly her testimony would have boosted your credibility with the jury.

 

APPELLANT: Yes.

 

At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel stated in her argument:

 

Your Honor, it appears that [appellant's] only viable defense was to have Mary Cano, this material witness, called, and although we cannot say with any certainty what she would have testified to, there is no evidence presented to you as to what, you know, that she would not have supported [appellant's] position . . . .

 

When considering claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts are not permitted to speculate about what evidence was not presented. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because the record does not affirmatively reflect what the testimony of Cano would have been, we hold appellant has failed in her burden of providing a record which "affirmatively demonstrate[s] the alleged ineffectiveness." Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813.

Second, even if we found the failure to secure the testimony of Cano to be deficient conduct on the part of trial counsel, we would then address Strickland's second prong and determine if the result of appellant's trial would have been different with Cano's testimony. In this analysis, we note that the essence of Cano's testimony was before the jury. Appellant's husband testified as follows:

Q. Did you tell the people at the Workforce that you were substitute teaching?

 

A. Yes, sir. I told Mary Cano. I called her by phone and I communicated to her that I didn't need to go to this workshop because I was substitute teaching.

 

Q. Did the Texas Workforce know you were substitute teaching?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. Did they still insist on you coming to their workshops?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. What was their rationale for insisting that you come to the workshops?

 

A. She told me, Mary Cano told me she did not consider substitute teaching employment, that the Texas Workforce does not consider substitute teaching as employment.

 

Q. Is that because of the uncertainty of whether or not you are going to work?

 

A. She said, "you never know. They might not never call you again."

 

During appellant's direct examination, the following exchange occurred:

 

Q. Can you explain to the jury why [you filled out the form indicating your husband was not employed]?

 

A. Well, afer my husband had gotten a job, after the 13th we received a letter to go to the Texas Workforce meeting. Well, I called Mary Cano and I told her, I said, "My husband doesn't need to go to the meeting because he's substitute teaching," and well, first she says, she says -- I said, "my husband is working." She goes, "Well, what is he doing?" I said, "He's substitute teaching," and she goes, "[Appellant], the Texas Workforce does not consider substitute teaching as employment," ... (4)

 

In light of the foregoing testimony, we hold there is no showing that the result of appellant's trial would have been different but for trial counsel's failure to secure the testimony of Mary Cano. Therefore, the second prong of Strickland has not been satisfied. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-92.

For both of these reasons, the trial judge's denial of the motion for new trial on the basis of not securing the testimony of Mary Cano did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the second point of error is overruled.

C. Failure to Peremptorily Strike Veniremember Marilyn Lewis Ruff.

The second point of error contends trial counsel was ineffective for not peremptorily striking the second veniremember, Marilyn Lewis Ruff, who ultimately served as the foreperson of the jury. During voir dire, Ruff, a teacher's aide, was questioned by both the State and the defense on whether she knew appellant's husband, and whether she knew Chandra Lewis, a witness for the State. After this questioning, Ruff stated that her knowledge of either appellant's husband or Lewis would not affect her or prevent her from being impartial.

At the motion for new trial hearing, appellant testified that she expressed her concerns about Ruff to trial counsel and instructed counsel to peremptorily strike Ruff. To convey this, appellant "scratched out Ruff's name" and said, "I [don't] want her on my jury." However, trial counsel did not strike Ruff and she ultimately served as foreperson of appellant's jury.

We read this point of error as raising three separate arguments. First, appellant argues: "[appellant expressed her concern about Ms. Ruff's prejudice to counsel and counsel did nothing, failing to question Ms. Ruff about whether she had any bias or prejudice that would prevent her from being able to be a fair and impartial juror in this case . . . ." This argument is not supported by the record. As noted above, trial counsel individually questioned Ruff about whether she knew appellant's husband and, if so, whether that would affect her impartiality. Ruff answered in the negative.

Second, appellant argues "it was not reasonable under prevailing professional norms that counsel fail to use a peremptory strike against [Ruff] when counsel had strikes available." This argument is not supported by the record. The record reflects that counsel exercised his ten peremptory strikes and, therefore, did not have an available strike for Ruff.

Third, appellant argues that she scratched Ruff's "name off counsel's list of potential jurors indicating to counsel that she did not want Ms. Ruff to serve on her jury." However, we reviewed the original strike list in this case and Ruff's name is not scratched off nor are there marks indicating someone erased marks through Ruff's name. Consequently, this argument is not supported by the record.

Having rejected these three arguments, we overrule the third point of error.

D. Erroneous Denial of the Motion for New Trial.

The first point of error contends the trial judge erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial. In support of her argument, appellant relies upon the arguments advanced in sections B and C, supra. However, for the reasons noted above, those arguments are without merit. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Accordingly, the first point of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

CHARLES F. BAIRD

Justice

 

Do Not Publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

 

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 22nd day of November, 2006.

1. Former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to the government code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 74.003 (Vernon 2005).

2. This indicates appellant's counsel at the motion for new trial hearing, who was not appellant's counsel at trial.

3. All emphasis supplied by author unless otherwise indicated.

4. Only at this point did the State lodge a hearsay objection and that objection was sustained by the trial judge. However, the State did not make a motion to strike or request an instruction to disregard the testimony. Therefore, appellant's testimony prior to the State's objection is not denied probative value. Tex. R. Evid. 802 (inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay).