Travis James Hartfield III v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 6, 2024.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-22-00816-CR
TRAVIS JAMES HARTFIELD III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 21-10-17765
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Travis James Hartfield III appeals his conviction for possession of
a controlled substance with intent to deliver, namely methamphetamine, in an
amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a), 481.102(6). He contends he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to make a pretrial
objection to the admission of a certificate of analysis. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Police officers from the narcotics task force wanted to set up a controlled
drug buy from Appellant because he was known in the community as a drug
dealer. An officer enlisted Lucero, who was in jail for possession of a controlled
substance, to perform the buy as a confidential informant. Lucero agreed to
perform several drug buys to “work [his] charges off.” Lucero was a drug addict
who was familiar with Appellant and had purchased drugs from Appellant before.
He contacted Appellant and arranged to buy an ounce of methamphetamine at
Appellant’s residence.
On August 5, 2020, officers searched Lucero, gave him money for the
purchase, equipped him with a video and audio device, and instructed him to
record the transaction. The recording does not show a transfer of drugs or money
between Appellant and Lucero. However, Lucero returned within about 30
seconds of entering Appellant’s residence with a bag containing methamphetamine
and handed it over to an undercover police officer, who had taken Lucero to
Appellant’s residence. One of the officers field tested the substance in the bag, and
it tested positive for methamphetamine. The substance was also tested at the Texas
Department of Public Safety crime lab and was confirmed to be methamphetamine
weighing 13.73 grams.
Appellant was indicted for possessing with intent to deliver
methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. A
jury trial was held in September 2022, and the jury found Appellant guilty as
charged. After a punishment hearing on October 17, 2022, the trial court found
Appellant had two prior felony offense convictions and assessed Appellant’s
punishment at 35 years’ confinement. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
2
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because
his defense counsel failed to object pretrial to the admission of a certificate of
analysis establishing the results of the laboratory analysis of the drugs Lucero
purchased from Appellant.
I. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
To prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must
show that (1) his trial counsel’s performance fell below the objective standard of
reasonableness; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d
137, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland
test defeats an ineffective assistance claim. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697; Fernandez
v. State, 580 S.W.3d 470, 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).
To satisfy the first prong, an appellant must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms. Lopez, 343 S.W.3d at
142. We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether counsel
was ineffective. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999);
Fernandez, 580 S.W.3d at 473. A trial counsel’s performance is subject to a
“highly deferential” review and there “is a strong presumption that counsel’s
conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Andrews
v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, any allegation of
ineffective assistance must be firmly founded in the record. Menefield v. State,
363 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
Direct appeal usually is an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective
3
assistance claim because the record generally is undeveloped. Id. at 592-93.
“Trial counsel ‘should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to explain his actions
before being denounced as ineffective.’” Id. at 593 (quoting Goodspeed v. State,
187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). “If trial counsel is not given that
opportunity, then the appellate court should not find deficient performance unless
the challenged conduct was ‘so outrageous that no competent attorney would have
engaged in it.’” Id. (quoting Goodspeed, 187 S.W.3d at 392).
To satisfy the second Strickland prong, an appellant must show a reasonable
probability that, but for his trial counsel’s deficient actions, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 308 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013); Lopez, 343 S.W.3d at 142. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Nava, 415 S.W.3d
at 308; Lopez, 343 S.W.3d at 142.
Article 38.41, Section 1 states that a “certificate of analysis that complies
with this article is admissible in evidence . . . to establish the results of a laboratory
analysis of physical evidence conducted by or for a law enforcement agency
without the necessity of the analyst personally appearing in court.” Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.41, §1; Williams v. State, 585 S.W.3d 478, 482 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2019). “Section 4, the notice-and-demand provision, requires the
offering party to file the certificate with the trial court and provide a copy to the
opposing party ‘[n]ot later than the 20th day before the trial begins.’” Williams,
585 S.W.3d at 482; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.41, § 4. But “[t]he
certificate is not admissible under Section 1 if, not later than the 10th day before
the trial begins, the opposing party files a written objection to the use of the
certificate.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.41, § 4; Williams, 585 S.W.3d at
482.
4
II. Application
Here, Appellant’s trial counsel was not given an opportunity to explain his
actions and no motion for new trial on ineffective assistance grounds was filed.
Nonetheless, Appellant contends on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective
because he failed to make a pretrial objection to the use of the certificate of
analysis establishing the results of the laboratory analysis at trial because the
certificate was “the sole evidence” showing the substance Appellant was accused
of selling to Lucero was methamphetamine. However, following the court of
criminal appeals’ pronouncements in Menefield, we cannot conclude that
Appellant met Strickland’s first prong and established that his trial counsel’s
performance was deficient.
In Menefield, the State introduced a laboratory report showing that the
substance found in the defendant’s pipe was cocaine. Menefield, 363 S.W.3d at
592. The laboratory report was the only evidence of the defendant’s cocaine
possession and was admitted without the testimony of the “analyst who conducted
the test and prepared the report.” Id. The defendant argued that his counsel
rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the admission of the report on
the grounds that it violated the Confrontation Clause. Id. The court of criminal
appeals held that the defendant could not meet the first prong of the Strickland test
on a silent record because the State could and with an objection would have
brought the analyst to the courtroom to testify. See id. at 593
As in Menefield, in this case there is no indication in the record why
Appellant’s trial counsel did not object to the admission of the certificate of
analysis prior to trial. Following Menefield, we presume that on a silent record it is
possible that Appellant’s trial counsel realized that had he objected, the State could
and would have called the laboratory analyst, who tested the drugs Lucero
5
purchased, to testify at trial. See id. at 593; Atkinson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 907,
911-12 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2018, no pet.) (concluding, based on Menefield,
that because of a silent record, the appellate court is required “to presume counsel
realized that the State would produce [the analyst] if he had lodged any objection
to [the] report”); Miles v. State, No. 01-11-00401-CR, 2012 WL 2357449, at *2-4
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (same).
Additionally, even stipulating to the admissibility of evidence offered by the
State is not devoid of trial strategy and cannot generally qualify as deficient
performance on a record that is silent as to a trial counsel’s reasoning. See Roberts
v. State, No. 10-14-00048-CR, 2015 WL 128563, at *5 (Tex. App.—Waco, Jan. 8,
2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that counsel’s
stipulation to the admissibility of lab reports verifying a substance as
methamphetamine when the State’s expert was unavailable to testify was not
ineffective assistance without a record of counsel’s reasons for doing so).
Further, we note that trial counsel’s strategy here seemed to center around
challenging confidential informant Lucero’s credibility and showing that Lucero
“tr[ied] to wrap up [Appellant] in a case . . . and get a benefit out of everything.”
Trial counsel zealously cross-examined Lucero, eliciting evidence that Lucero (1)
had a number of convictions, including felony convictions; (2) is a drug addict; (3)
did not record the drug buy as he was instructed by the police; and (4) did not
fulfill the agreement he made with the State but claimed several times that he did.
Trial counsel also elicited evidence that the photo of the bag containing drugs
admitted at trial looked different than the bag Lucero bought from Appellant. He
further elicited testimony from the investigating officer that the video recording
does not show an actual transfer of drugs and money between Lucero and
6
Appellant. And trial counsel argued to the trial court that Appellant is entitled to
an “instructed verdict of acquittal” because the State failed to sufficiently
corroborate Lucero’s testimony to prove its case.
The record before us does not firmly establish that trial counsel’s
performance was deficient. Because we conclude that Appellant failed to
demonstrate that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness, we overrule Appellant’s issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Meagan Hassan
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
7