Sabrina Gaines v. State ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-99-00654-CR
    Sabrina Gaines, Appellant
    v.
    The State of Texas, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 0993343, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING
    A jury found Sabrina Gaines guilty of eight counts of forgery and assessed as
    punishment eight concurrent two-year terms of confinement in state jail. On appeal, she contends that
    she was denied her constitutional rights when the prosecutor asked about a leg brace she was wearing
    and her counsel did not object. We will affirm the judgment.
    Several witnesses testified to establish the case against Gaines. Andreas Castro
    testified that his checkbook was stolen and that seven checks were written on his account payable to
    Gaines; he denied writing the checks, authorizing the checks, or even knowing Gaines. Paula Tisdale
    testified similarly about a check written on her account payable to Denise Chapman; she denied
    writing the check, authorizing it, or knowing Gaines or Chapman. Rami Daass worked for the
    Conoco station that cashed the checks. He testified that the store took the check casher’s
    identification and thumb print. The owner-manager of the Conoco, Adam Abou-Hamdan, said he
    saw Gaines sign her name to several checks and sign “Denise Chapman” on another. When the
    checks were returned because payment had been stopped, he convinced Gaines to return to the store
    on the pretext of having a pager she had obtained at the store reprogrammed. When she returned,
    Daass called police, who arrested Gaines for forgery. A police fingerprint specialist testified that
    fingerprints on seven of the checks matched Gaines’s fingerprints; the smudging of the fingerprint on
    the eighth check prevented a positive identification.
    Gaines testified essentially that everyone involved in the check cashing was involved
    in the scam. She said that she knew Castro and Chapman because they had sex and used cocaine at
    Gaines’s house. She said Castro gave his checkbook to Gaines’s boyfriend, Claude Green, in
    exchange for crack cocaine. Green directed her to cash checks from Castro’s checkbook. Gaines
    said the Conoco owner and employees knew they were cashing illegal checks and would take a
    percentage for themselves. Gaines disputed the testimony regarding the chain of events on the day
    she was arrested. She said Chapman attempted to cash a check, but the police arrested Gaines after
    Daass mistakenly identified her, rather than Chapman, as the person who attempted to pass the check.
    She also said the pager belonged to Green and that she did not have it when she was arrested.
    Gaines also testified about her criminal and medical history. She admitted on direct
    examination that she had been incarcerated for burglary of a habitation. She also testified that her
    mental and emotional problems led to numerous suicide attempts and required numerous medications.
    She testified that, while on a work detail in prison, her left leg had been crushed, leaving her with a
    2
    limp and various other lingering difficulties; this testimony in part led to the following exchange on
    cross examination:
    Q. [by the prosecutor] And you indicated when you were speaking with [defense
    counsel] that you have something wrong with your leg?
    A. [by Gaines] Yes, sir.
    Q. And it’s your left leg?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And I noticed a moment ago when you were walking there was a brace on your
    right leg?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. My understanding is that brace is unrelated to any kind of medical
    condition, am I correct?
    A. Yes, sir, this brace is for the purpose of me being here.
    The jury found Gaines guilty of forgery on all eight counts.
    Gaines contends on appeal that the attention called to the brace on her leg by the
    prosecutor’s questioning led to deprivation of several of her constitutional rights. She contends that,
    when the prosecutor asked about the brace, she was deprived of her right to the presumption of
    innocence. She contends that her counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s questions about the
    brace deprived her of her right to effective counsel. Gaines does not challenge any action by the
    district court. Though both points of error arise from the use of the leg brace, she does not challenge
    3
    the decision to use the leg brace.1 Rather, she challenges the prosecutor’s calling attention to the
    brace and defense counsel’s failure to object to that action.
    By her first point of error, Gaines alleges that the last question by the State quoted
    above deprived her of her right to a presumption of innocence. Gaines did not object to either the
    question or the answer. Failure to object can waive violations even of constitutional rights. Tex. R.
    App. P. 33.1(a)(1); see Estelle v. Williams, 
    425 U.S. 501
    , 508 (1976) (objection to forced wearing
    of jail uniform waived); Thompson v. State, 
    514 S.W.2d 275
    , 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (trial
    courts must set out basis for requiring restraints upon objection); see also Russell v. State, 
    665 S.W.2d 771
    , 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (constitutional rights other than right to jury trial can be
    waived absent objection). We conclude that Gaines waived this error.2 Accordingly, we overrule
    point one.
    Trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s question regarding the brace is the
    basis for Gaines’s argument that her counsel was ineffective. In considering this second point of
    error, we will examine whether counsel’s conduct failed to meet an objective standard for reasonable
    performance and whether that failure deprived the appellant of a fair trial. See Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687-88; Jackson v. State, 
    973 S.W.2d 954
    , 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
    1
    There is no indication that the court ordered the use of the leg brace, nor is there any
    explanation of who decided she should wear it or why. There is, however, no claim in the trial or
    appellate courts that the brace was medically necessary for physical support. We also note that there
    is no detailed description of the brace or of any attempts to conceal it in the record.
    2
    To the extent Gaines challenges the placing of the leg brace on her, we conclude that she
    waived that error by failing to raise any objection at trial to the use of the restraint or the manner in
    which it was used.
    4
    We look at the totality of the representation. Ex parte Carillo, 
    687 S.W.2d 320
    , 324 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1985); Mayhue v. State, 
    969 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). There is a
    strong presumption that counsel provided adequate assistance and made all the significant decisions
    in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690
    . Counsel is allowed
    wide latitude within reasonable professional standards to make tactical decisions. 
    Id. We generally
    will not speculate as to trial strategy. 
    Mayhue, 969 S.W.2d at 511
    . The representation need not be
    free of error. Ingham v. State, 
    679 S.W.2d 503
    , 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Though numerous
    instances of failing to object to harmful inadmissible evidence could show ineffective assistance, an
    isolated failure does not necessarily render counsel ineffective. See Weathersby v. State, 
    627 S.W.2d 729
    , 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Finally, the client must show a reasonable probability that, but for
    counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. 
    Mayhue, 969 S.W.2d at 511
    .
    Initially, we note that it is not clear that counsel erred by not objecting. The
    prosecutor’s question, at least literally, sought only to exclude medical reasons for creating the need
    for the brace; the practical intent and effect of excluding medical reasons, however, may have been
    to highlight other concerns, such as public safety or escape prevention. There is no direct evidence
    of why the prosecutor asked this question, why Gaines’s attorney did not object to the question about
    the brace, or what the jury thought about the brace. Gaines’s attorney may reasonably have
    determined that not objecting to the question was the better tactic. By not objecting, the attorney
    avoided calling attention to the question and answer. The attorney also may have decided that Gaines
    would get sympathy if the jury inferred that she was required to wear the leg brace either to protect
    5
    her from herself or for security reasons that the jury deemed spurious because none of the testimony
    of her past or present indicated physical violence to others.
    The remainder of counsel’s performance appears reasonably effective; Gaines alleges
    no other deficiencies. Counsel participated actively in the trial, making numerous pretrial motions,
    asking questions during voir dire, examining and cross-examining witnesses, and arguing on her
    behalf. We conclude that Gaines has not shown that counsel’s performance was unreasonable.
    Even if Gaines had shown counsel’s performance was unreasonable, we would
    conclude that Gaines has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result
    of the proceedings would have been different. There is no showing that whatever the jury believed
    about her leg brace tipped the scale toward conviction, weighted as that scale was with the testimony
    of Gaines and others regarding Gaines’s role in the check writing and Gaines’s past offenses.3 The
    testimony about her part in the proceedings supported the conviction. The testimony about her past
    undermines her credibility in the same manner as any conclusions the jury might draw about the need
    for a leg brace—particularly in the absence of any testimony that she was a violent person. Because
    Gaines has shown neither unreasonable performance by counsel nor a reasonable probability that such
    performance prevented an acquittal or lesser sentence, we overrule point two.
    We affirm the judgment.
    3
    The testimony about Gaines’s emotional problems, while irrelevant to the commission of the
    crime, supported inferences that the brace was designed to restrain Gaines for reasons other than her
    guilt or defense of public safety.
    6
    Lee Yeakel, Justice
    Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson
    Affirmed
    Filed: September 14, 2000
    Do Not Publish
    7