DocketNumber： 06-07-00003-CR
Filed Date： 1/31/2007
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/7/2015
Donald Reed attempts to appeal his conviction for theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Reed was convicted by a jury, and the jury assessed fifty years' imprisonment. His sentence was imposed September 20, 2006. A motion for new trial was timely filed October 19, 2006. Reed's notice of appeal was filed January 24, 2007. We received the clerk's record January 29, 2007. The issue before us is whether Reed timely filed his notice of appeal. We conclude that he did not and dismiss the attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.
A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed by a defendant in order to perfect appeal in a criminal case. A defendant's notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Because a motion for new trial was filed, the last date Reed could timely file his notice of appeal was December 18, 2006, ninety days after the day the sentence was imposed in open court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Further, no motion for extension of time was filed in this Court within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal.
Reed has failed to perfect his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 30, 2007
Date Decided: January 31, 2007
Do Not Publish
ethamphetamine for which he was charged) in the storage area of his garage. He also voiced ignorance about the source of the drugs found in the plastic bags in the toilet upon which he had been seated. The only person present with Duck in the house was Bobby Taylor, Duck's neighbor; they had been clearing a common fence row between their properties. Overall, it would appear that there was sufficient evidence presented for the jury to reasonably conclude that the methamphetamine found in Duck's house belonged to him and that he was in possession of the methamphetamine.
Using the standards set out above, we find that there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find Duck guilty of the offense with which he had been charged. Accordingly, we reject the first point of error.
2. EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Duck complains that there were several instances when evidence of extraneous crimes, wrongs, or acts was admitted for no other reason than to demonstrate that Duck possessed poor character. He maintains that such extraneous issues tainted the jury's opinion of him and caused his conviction.
Because there were no objections raised to most of these proffers, it is beneficial to examine the circumstances under which we are to review the admission of objectionable evidence.
As required by Tex. R. App. P. 33.1, and as stated in Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002):
To preserve error for appellate review, the complaining party must make a specific objection and obtain a ruling on the objection. Broxton v. State, 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In addition, the objection must be made at the earliest possible opportunity. Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 870, 116 L. Ed. 2d 162, 112 S. Ct. 202 (1991). Finally, the point of error on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial. Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
The first mention of extraneous offenses about which Duck complains involves evidence of a search of Duck's house pursuant to a search warrant during 2002, this search having resulted in peace officers having discovered methamphetamine and a methamphetamine laboratory in Duck's house. Before this evidence was submitted, Duck had elected to testify on his own behalf and the following exchange took place while being examined by his attorney:
Q Do you know how to manufacture methamphetamine?
A Have no idea.
Q You heard the explanation of Officer Martin this morning. Right?
A Uh-huh.
Q Have you ever participated in a cook?
A No.
Q Do you know the recipe for a cook?
A No.
The State responded by introducing evidence from Lance Hall, a peace officer, of the search conducted at Duck's home in 2002. That search, as in this instance, uncovered a methamphetamine laboratory on the premises. The most striking difference between the two searches was that, in the 2002 search, the methamphetamine lab had been found in a bedroom; in the search conducted in connection with this charge, the methamphetamine lab was found in Duck's storage space off of the garage. There was no mention in Hall's testimony of any arrest of Duck or of charges having been brought against Duck as a result of this 2002 search at that time (although Duck testified rather generally that he had been charged, but the case never came to trial). There was no objection lodged to this evidence by Duck's retained counsel and the error was, therefore, waived. Even if an objection had been made, there was ample reason to permit this testimony to be admitted. By maintaining that he did not know how to manufacture methamphetamine, it was permissible for the State to rebut this statement by the introduction of evidence of circumstances in which Duck is shown to have been familiar with the process, thereby impeaching his testimony.
Another instance about which Duck complains on appeal is that the State also made reference to "a magazine featuring women without clothes" and other material which was (in the opinion of the arresting officer) "pornography." (1) The mention of this sexually-explicit material elicited an objection from Duck's counsel as to relevancy, which objection was overruled. Judging from the testimony elicited by the State after it announced that it would tie its relevance to the case being heard, the relevance for this proffer was the explanation by the officer that it is common for people using methamphetamine to be in possession of sexually-explicit material. The connection between the desire to view magazines of nude photographs and the use of methamphetamine appears tenuous, and the market for these publications seems to be much broader than just the illicit-drug-using world; the real underlying purpose of the mention of these photographs would appear to be to cast Duck in an unfavorable light with the jury. Nevertheless, an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 101-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's ruling unless that ruling falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Even though objection was made of the first introduction of evidence of "pornography, " another witness, Clay McClure, testified again about this matter without objection from Duck's counsel, thereby failing to preserve any error to its admission into evidence. (2)
There were several other instances of possibly inadmissible evidence which was adduced at trial about which Duck complains on appeal:
(a) There was evidence of the fact that a pistol was likewise found on the premises; as with the photographs, the gun bore no relationship to the offense with which Duck was charged. There was no evidence presented that Duck was unlawfully in possession of it.
(b) Evidence was given of a 1994 incident when Duck was stopped for a traffic violation and was arrested for an outstanding warrant issued by the State of Arkansas. The witness, Coy Murray, testified regarding the arrest and stated that a search of Duck's vehicle revealed the presence of over twelve grams of methamphetamine. He stated that this case had not gone to court.
(c) Duck was questioned about his failure to pay income taxes and the fact that there was an Internal Revenue Service lien upon his home and other matters concerning his personal financial affairs.
(d) The State questioned Duck about a domestic disturbance call made at the Duck home shortly before the trial began.
In none of these circumstances did Duck raise any objection to their admission at the time of trial. Typically, appellate courts will not consider any error that counsel for the accused could have called, but did not call, to the attention of the trial court at a time when such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court. Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Ex parte Crispen, 777 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Texas rules require defendants to object at trial in order to preserve an error for review on appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). As to evidence in particular, the law is that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and in case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context. Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 886-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
Since no effort was made by Duck to call any error to the attention of the trial court, we will not now consider them.
3. CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Much of the basis for the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests on the failure of Duck's trial counsel to raise objections as already discussed. In addition to those above, Duck raises such things as the failure of Duck's trial counsel to request a charge on a lesser-included offense, to call a witness which might testify that the volume of methamphetamine would have been much less than the 200-plus grams had the processing of the methamphetamine been completed, to the failure to object to the State's reopening of the case to permit it to introduce the jars which constituted the methamphetamine laboratory, the failure to file motions for discovery or suppression, the failure to file a pretrial request that Duck be considered for community supervision, and other matters.
The standard of testing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted for Texas constitutional claims in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). To prevail on this claim, an appellant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). To meet this burden, an appellant must prove that his attorney's representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for his attorney's deficiency, the result of the trial would have been different. Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Under this standard, a claimant must prove that counsel's representation so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694.
Our review of counsel's representation is highly deferential; we indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable representation. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; Tong, 25 S.W.3d at 712. This Court will not second-guess through hindsight the strategy of counsel at trial, nor will the fact that another attorney might have pursued a different course support a finding of ineffectiveness. Blott v. State, 588 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). That another attorney, including appellant's counsel on appeal, might have pursued a different course of action does not necessarily indicate ineffective assistance. Harner v. State, 997 S.W.2d 695, 704 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, no pet.).
This two-pronged test is the benchmark for judging whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a reliable result. McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
Absent both showings, an appellate court cannot conclude that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable. Ex parte Menchaca, 854 S.W.2d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). An appellant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel was ineffective. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
"To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant would have been required to prove, among other things, that his trial counsel's actions were not the result of 'sound trial strategy.'" Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 885.
Duck's trial counsel seems to have had a strategy which rested very strongly on the recantation of the "reliable informant" for the search warrant which precipitated the raid and arrest; the informant said at trial that she knew that the methamphetamine lab had been put in the storage area of Duck's house without Duck's knowledge. This strategy may well have taken the posture that Duck, while not a choir boy, had simply been the subject of planted evidence and, while he admitted that he had used methamphetamine, this particular cache simply was not his. There is nothing to suggest that Duck was eligible for consideration for community supervision; there is no evidence that Duck's trial counsel had been denied access to the information which a motion for discovery would have revealed. Given that the "pornographic" photographs were never introduced (except for the one magazine which is revealed in the photograph of the pistol found on the premises), there was nothing to suggest that this was relevant evidence which would find its way into trial.
On appeal, it is pointed out that Duck's trial counsel failed to file motions for discovery or other pretrial motions. However, it is not demonstrated or even alleged that any such activity by Duck's trial counsel would have revealed any information which he did not already possess, would have affected the conduct of the trial, or would have changed the results which were finally reached.
Many of the complaints which Duck now alleges were examples of ineffective trial counsel are contained in a virtual laundry list of things which were not done; however, the appellant's brief does not specify what is now alleged to have been the proper course of action for trial counsel to have taken. For instance, he claims that trial counsel should have made a request for an inclusion of a lesser-included offense in the jury charge, but leaves to the speculation of this Court as to the lesser-included offense which might have been requested to have been placed in the jury charge. If a point of error is inadequately briefed, we will not address it. Vuong v. State, 830 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We cannot speculate beyond the record provided; rather, a reviewing court must presume that the actions were taken as part of a strategic plan for representing the client. Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 837-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Duck also now complains of a failure of trial counsel to have moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's case. An instructed (or directed) verdict is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In this case, the evidence presented to the jury supported the State's version of the case and there would have been no use to make such an obviously fruitless motion. Therefore, an instructed verdict would have been improper and counsel was not ineffective for failing to do a useless thing. "The law does not require a useless thing to be done." Allen v. State, 552 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
Looking at this matter after the fact and in retrospect, it is much easier to find errors in judgment and instances in which the appellate counsel's participation in the trial would have been much different from the trial counsel's. However, that ability to review from outside the arena and from the perspective of the future is not the standard for the effectiveness of counsel. The burden on a showing of ineffective assistance of counsel is understandably onerous.
Duck has failed to meet the standards for the proof of ineffective counsel and we overrule this point of error.
4. FAILURE TO INQUIRE AS TO RELATIONSHIP OF JUROR TO WITNESS
After the jury had been sworn and empaneled and during Duck's opening statement, one of the jurors, Clara Clem, interrupted, obtaining the attention of the court; the following exchange ensued:
JUROR CLARA CLEM: Well, I didn't remember a name that was mentioned yesterday was Todd Martin, and I know Todd Martin, but I didn't know --.
THE COURT: Well, let's -- we'll take that up in just a moment. Okay?
JUROR CLARA CLEM: Okay. Well, I didn't want to go too far before -- .
THE COURT: That's fine. Just -- I'm going to let Mr. Lee finish his opening statement and then we'll address that.
Duck's trial counsel then completed his opening argument, and the following discussion immediately followed:
THE COURT: Could the attorneys approach?
(Bench conference)
THE COURT: As I remember, Todd Martin's name wasn't even mentioned yesterday. Is that right?
[THE STATE]: No.
THE COURT: So I don't think that raises to the point of -- .
[COUNSEL FOR DUCK]: I don't know what Todd could do that would make -- .
THE COURT: Yeah, so I don't think there's an issue that exists there.
[THE STATE]: I don't see how it could, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
To commence, the court was correct in its recollection that the name of Todd Martin, one of the witnesses, was not mentioned during voir dire. It is not shown whether this omission was intended. In either case, Duck now maintains it was the duty of the court to have inquired into the relationship of the witness and the juror.
Nothing here shows that there was any relationship between Juror Clem and Martin which led to an adverse impact on Duck and the trial of his case. No one chose to inquire into the nature of the relationship and, given the evidence before this Court, it is just as likely that Juror Clem had an adverse opinion of Martin as it is likely that she had a favorable opinion of him.
It is the duty of Duck to have inquired about the relationship which existed and to have inquired at the proper time (during voir dire) concerning this subject. Even if a juror would have been disqualified or subject to challenge for cause, a reversal of a conviction based on the issue of a disqualified juror can only be granted if (1) the defendant raises the disqualification before the verdict is entered; or (2) the disqualification was not discovered or brought to the attention of the trial court until after the verdict was entered and the defendant makes a showing of significant harm by the service of the disqualified juror. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.46 (Vernon 2006).
Here, there has been no showing that Juror Clem was disqualified from serving on the jury which convicted Duck; there is no showing that she possessed bias or prejudice either in favor of or against Duck or the State. Even if it had been the duty of the court to have inquired about the relationship between Juror Clem and Martin (which it was not), Duck has made no showing of harm--either significant or insignificant.
This point of error is overruled.
5. IMPROPER JURY ARGUMENT
The State apparently attempted to elicit testimony from Officer Murray which would identify a former assistant district attorney who had been assigned the case involving Duck's 2002 arrest but failed to do so. Ignoring that failure to establish the identity of the one-time prosecuting attorney or whatever else he intended to show by the revelation of that name, on summation, on final arguments, the State said, "The district attorney that was charged with the responsibility of prosecuting those first two cases didn't do it, and as a result, he's not a part of this office anymore."
Duck objected, pointing out that this evidence was outside the record and was, therefore, improper argument. The Court responded with the noncommittal, "Let's move it along." Duck did not press further for a ruling on the objection and received none. As mentioned previously, Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 makes certain requirements at the time of trial for the preservation of error before it can be considered on appeal. Wilson, 71 S.W.3d at 349. Duck did not preserve the error for appeal.
Accordingly, this point of error is overruled.
6. IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS
Don Wild was called by Duck as a witness. After Wild had testified that he overheard a conversation between Carlene Carter and Joanna Shope (the informant upon whose tip the search warrant had been issued) wherein they discussed Duck, the State began to cross-examine Wild. Almost immediately, the State first elicited the information that Wild had been charged (but not yet convicted) of manufacturing a controlled substance and that he had been found guilty of receiving stolen property, for the possession of a controlled substance, and for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. None of these charges related to the offense with which Duck was charged.
The only objection lodged by Duck to the recitation of the charges related to the spreading out of a computer printout of Wild's "rap sheet," where Duck's counsel objected to the "courtroom antics" of the State. There was no objection lodged to the scope of the inquiry or to its relevance.
It is improper to impeach a witness on an immaterial or collateral matter. See Flannery v. State, 676 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Williams v. State, 542 S.W.2d 131, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Garza v. State, 18 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref'd).
However, since there was no objection lodged to the improper inquiry into Wild's quite extensive criminal history, no opportunity was provided to the trial court to rule on its relevance. It is clear that a failure to object in a timely and specific manner during trial will waive error in the admission of evidence. Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
No objection having been made, there was no error on the part of the trial court in permitting the cross-examination to continue.
7. FAILURE TO CAUSE TRANSCRIPTION OF READING OF JURY CHARGE
Duck points out that the trial court failed to require the court reporter to transcribe the portion of the trial which included the reading of the charges in either the guilt/innocense phase or the punishment phase of the trial.
Duck is correct about the requirement that a court reporter must: "unless excused by agreement of the parties, attend court sessions and make a full record of the proceedings." See Tex. R. App. P. 13.1(a). The record reveals no evidence that the reading of the charges was transcribed, nor any agreement by the parties to waive this transcription. Plainly, this was error but no objection was lodged to it. (3)
However, this Court has dealt with this identical issue previously in Brossette v. State, 99 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2003, pet. dism'd, untimely filed), and found that, in the absence of an objection regarding the failure to have the court reporter transcribe the reading of a charge, any error was waived; this Court further observed that, even if the error had not been waived, it was not reversible error because it did not affect the substantial rights of the party. The discussion in Brossette is made in depth and is precisely on point (id. at 285), and its substance will not be repeated here. This point of error is overruled.
We affirm the judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: February 7, 2007
Date Decided: April 3, 2007
Do Not Publish
1. The photograph to which the State was making reference at that time showed a pistol and
a magazine which would likely be available at almost any convenience store.
2. To preserve error for appellate review, a party objecting to evidence must renew that
objection each time the evidence is offered. Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003); Martinez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). There are two exceptions to
this rule, those being (a) when a running objection is obtained and (b) when the court, out of the
jury's presence, hears and overrules objections to evidence. Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 858
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Neither of those occurred in this case. Any error in the admission of
evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection. Valle, 109
S.W.3d at 509; Hudson v. State, 675 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
3. As a practical matter, so long as it was, indeed, the charge which was read, what possible
damage would rise to a defendant here? The written charges are included in the court's transcript,
and there should be nothing in those charges which were not read to the jury. Certainly, unless the
court were to read something other than the charge, its transcription would do little other than inflate
the reporter's record.