Scott, Orian Lee

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-83,185-07, -08, -09, -10, -11 & -12
EX PARTE ORIAN LEE SCOTT, Applicant
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NOS. 20462 HC-3, 20462 HC-4, 20463 HC-3,
20463 HC-4, 20464 HC-3 & 20464 HC-4
IN THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT
LAMAR COUNTY
H ERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which K ELLER, P.J.,
K EASLER, A LCALA, R ICHARDSON, Y EARY, N EWELL, and W ALKER, JJ., joined. K EEL,
J., concurred.
OPINION
Orian Lee Scott was convicted of nine offenses in three separate indictments and
was sentenced to a total of 100 years’ confinement.1 We filed and set these writ
applications to decide whether his counsel was ineffective at the punishment stage of
1
Each indictment was identical except that they named different victims. In each
indictment, Scott was charged with one count of possession of child pornography, one count of
inducing a sexual performance by a minor, and one count of producing or promoting a sexual
performance by a child.
Scott–2
trial. We will deny relief.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
In August 2003, Applicant, Orian Lee Scott, moved to Maxey, outside of Paris,
Texas, and he started asking around town for a few boys to help him move and unpack
boxes. A mother of twin teenage boys heard about Scott’s inquiries and got in touch with
him.2 He told her that he was looking to hire some teenage kids to help out around his
house. He also told her that he would pay her boys ten dollars an hour each. The mother
thought that was an exceptionally high wage, and she agreed to let her kids work for Scott
the rest of the summer.3 The boys worked Monday through Friday. Once school began,
however, the job was supposed to end, but Scott said that he still needed help around the
house maintaining his yard, painting his barn, and bathing his dogs. The boys’ mother
agreed to let her kids work on Saturdays during the school year. They worked about six
hours each Saturday. Around Thanksgiving, Scott asked them whether they had a friend
that could also help around the house. They said that they did, and their friend started
2
The mother learned about Scott’s offer through her husband. Although the family lived
in Fort Towson, Oklahoma, her husband worked in Paris for about 9 years.
3
One of the victims testified that, after he worked for Scott, he worked at Sonic and got
paid the minimum wage of about five dollars per hour, and that he has never again been paid ten
dollars per hour to work since then. Another boy testified that the work was not worth what they
were getting paid and that there was not enough work to justify hiring three boys. The record also
shows that the boys were “on the clock” even when they were not working, such as when they
were sitting around playing on Scott’s computer or showering.
Scott–3
working for Scott too.
When the kids first started bathing Scott’s dogs in the summer, they would do it
outside and usually did not wear shirts. On one occasion, Scott videotaped them washing
his dogs, allegedly because he needed to “test” an old camera. As the days got colder,
however, Scott told the boys to bathe the dogs in his guest bathroom. He even suggested
to one of them that the dogs would not mind if the kids bathed them in the nude. The boy
refused. Later, Scott provided each of them with swim trunks to use so that their clothes
would not get dirty when they washed the dogs.4
After awhile, Scott encouraged the kids to take a shower after bathing the dogs and
doing yard work. The shower in Scott’s guest bathroom had no curtain, and Scott never
installed one, even though the boys took showers there almost every week for over six
months.5 Scott told them that, if they cleaned up (i.e., showered at his house), he would
treat them to dinner and a movie.6 One of the twins testified that he and his brother
thought that the bathroom was a little creepy and that they even looked for a camera at
one point but never found one. Unfortunately, there was a camera. The clock radio in the
4
There was testimony that this was unnecessary because the boys could bathe the dogs
without getting their clothes dirty. There was also testimony questioning why Scott had four pairs
of swim trunks that fit the kids he hired.
5
One boy testified that when he asked Scott why he did not have a shower curtain, Scott
replied that he did not need one. Another boy testified that Scott evaded the question when asked.
6
Scott took the boys to a movie and dinner almost every weekend that they worked for
him after school started, and he paid for everyone’s dinner and movie tickets even though the
boys earned about $60 per day working for Scott.
Scott–4
bathroom had a hidden camera in it, which was pointed directly at the bathtub. It was later
discovered that the hidden camera was hooked up to a VCR system and that Scott had
filmed almost every shower the boys had taken. The videos that Scott recorded showed
that the boys would often masturbate while they showered. They also showed that Scott
adjusted the hidden camera numerous times to get a better angle, and one of the videos
even showed Scott in the bathroom simulating masturbation to check the angle of the
camera. Scott also installed a light in the bathroom that was above the shower so that he
could see better. After he was arrested, police discovered a newly drilled hole in the
bathroom opposite the hidden camera that would have given a camera operator a full-
frontal view of the children while showering and masturbating.
Scott would occasionally allow the boys to use his computer to play games, and
one day while on the computer, the twins found pornographic images of young boys.
They told their mother, who later called the police. The police searched Scott’s home and
seized recordings of the kids masturbating in the shower, thousands of digital images of
child pornography on Scott’s computer, thousands of images of child pornography Scott
kept on physical media at his house (e.g., DVDs, CDs, over 400 floppy disks, etc.), and
photographs in a shoe box of underage teenage boys in swimsuits at what appeared to be
a pool party. It looked like the photographs were taken through a window or sliding glass
door. Police also noticed that Scott was almost finished building a swimming pool at his
house.
Scott–5
B. Procedural Posture
In three separate indictments, Scott was charged with three counts of inducing a
sexual performance by a child, three counts of producing or promoting a sexual
performance by a child, and three counts of possession of child pornography. Each
indictment referred to a different victim. Scott pled guilty to the child-pornography
charges but went to trial on the other counts. The jury found him guilty of all six of the
remaining charges. For each of the inducing-a-sexual-performance convictions, the jury
sentenced Scott to twenty years’ confinement (for a total of sixty years); for each of the
producing-or-promoting convictions, the jury sentenced Scott to ten years’ imprisonment
(for a total of thirty years); and for each of the possession-of-child-pornography
convictions, the jury sentenced Scott to ten years’ confinement (for a total of thirty years).
The trial judge ordered the inducing-a-sexual-performance convictions and the
producing-or-promoting convictions to run consecutively and for Scott’s child-
pornography convictions to run concurrent to his stacked sentences. In all, Scott was
sentenced to 100 years’ confinement.
On appeal, Scott raised various arguments, including that the evidence was legally
insufficient to support his convictions for inducing a sexual performance by a child. Scott
v. State, 173 S.W.3d 856, 869 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005). The court of appeals
agreed, and it rendered acquittals on those counts. Id. On discretionary review, this Court
left in place the court of appeals’ judgments entering acquittals. Scott v. State, 235
Scott–6
S.W.3d 255, 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Scott later filed a post-conviction writ
application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We remanded the application to the
habeas court because the record was insufficiently developed. In particular, we instructed
the habeas judge to respond to Scott’s ineffective-assistance claim and to determine if any
of his sentences had been discharged. Ex parte Scott, Nos. WR-83,185-07, -08, -09, -10, -
11, & -12, 2015 WL 4594085 (Tex. Crim. App. July 29, 2015) (not designated for
publication) (per curiam order). Although the judge noted which sentences Scott had
discharged, he did not make a recommendation regarding whether Scott should get relief
on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase. Ex parte Scott,
Nos. WR-83,185-07, -08, -09, -10, -11, & -12, 2015 WL 8954906 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec.
16, 2015) (not designated for publication) (per curiam order). We remanded the
application again, and the habeas court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law
recommending that we deny relief on the ineffective-assistance issue. We filed and set
Scott’s application to determine whether his counsel was ineffective at the punishment
phase. Id.II. HABEAS CORPUS
A. Claims
Scott argues that his counsel performed deficiently in a number of respects:
• by failing to produce any mitigating evidence at the punishment stage to
support a lesser sentence, namely eliciting good character evidence from
family members and calling Dr. JoAnn Ondrovick to testify that Scott
would be a good candidate for her rehabilitation program;
Scott–7
• by failing to object to Scott being sentenced to 100 years in prison as a
violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment;
• by failing to object to the stacking of Scott’s sentences;
• by making a deficient argument during closing;
• by not objecting to various instances of improper argument by the State
during its closing; and
• by not objecting to a comment on the weight of the evidence made by the
trial judge.
B. Findings and Conclusions
The habeas court did not hold a hearing, but numerous affidavits were submitted,
including two from Quannah Dixon (Scott’s sister), two from Michael Scott (one of
Scott’s brothers), two from Orian Scott (Applicant), and two from trial counsel. The
habeas court found trial counsel’s affidavits credible, but not those of Dixon, Michael, or
Applicant, and it entered a number of relevant findings and conclusions:
• [Defense counsel]’s failure to call witnesses to testify on behalf of
[Scott] . . . was reasonable in that family witnesses refused to attend
trial and the expert witness [Ondrovick] consulted by [defense
counsel] was hostile to [Scott] and her testimony would have been
harmful to [Scott].
• [Scott] was not prejudiced[.] [T]he very type of evidence [Scott]
would solicit from [his brother and sister] -- that [he] was a
successful, career educator, had serious medical problems and a
family that loved him -- was presented to the jury by [defense
counsel] during his closing argument without objection from the
prosecutor.
Scott–8
• [Defense counsel]’s decision not to call Ondrovick was reasonable
and appropriate in that she would have testified that [Scott] was not a
suitable candidate for her treatment program and that she was angry
about having to come to court during the holiday season.
• [Scott]’s sentence was not violative of the 8th Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in that each
sentence was within the statutory range of punishment for the
offenses of conviction as provided by the Texas Penal Code.
• [Defense counsel]’s failure to object to the trial court’s sua sponte
stacking of sentences would have been futile because the stacking of
sentences was either mandatory or within the sole discretion of the
trial judge.
• [Defense counsel]’s failure to object to certain portions of the
prosecution’s closing argument regarding character and other
potential victims in other states . . . was a reasonable trial strategy in
that the objections might have drawn the jury’s particular attention to
that argument.
• [Scott] was not prejudiced because of the prosecutor[’]s argument
and failure of [defense counsel] to object due to the overwhelming
evidence of [Scott]’s guilt and the quantity and nature of the
evidence presented by the prosecution at the sentencing hearing.
[Scott] pled “Guilty” to possessing child pornography. He
maintained a large quantity of pornographic images and disturbing
photographs depicting teenage boys and young men all of which was
appropriately before the jury at punishment. [Scott] demonstrated a
sophisticated and premeditated pattern of luring and recording
teenage boys in the shower on multiple occasions. These recordings
were kept as part of a larger collection of homoerotic pornography.
Furthermore, the very type of character evidence [Scott] would
solicit from [his sister and brother] -- that [he] was a successful,
career educator, had serious medical problems and a family that
loved him -- was presented to the jury by [defense counsel] during
his closing argument without objection. Finally, it was
uncontroverted that [Scott] had no criminal history and all trial
counsel argued accordingly.
Scott–9
• [Defense counsel]’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s
characterization of [Scott] as a “pedophile” . . . was reasonable in
that the [Scott] had pled “Guilty” to multiple counts of Possession of
Child Pornography and the jury had found [Scott] “Guilty” of
multiple counts of Inducing a Sexual Performance by a Child and
Producing or Promoting a Sexual Performance by a Child.
• [Scott] was not prejudiced because the evidence showed -- and the
jury found beyond a reasonable doubt -- that [Scott] was guilty of
offenses involving children and [Scott] had expended considerable
effort and planning to procure, produce and collect these
pornographic images.
• The defense strategy was reasonable not to object to the trial judge’s
comment that it was “a fair assumption based upon the
record” . . . because it might have drawn the jury’s attention to that
evidence.
• [Scott] was not prejudiced by the trial judge’s single comment and
[defense counsel]’s failure to object to it due to the overwhelming
evidence of . . . [Scott]’s guilt, [and] the quantity and quality of the
evidence presented by the prosecution at the sentencing hearing.
[Scott] pled “Guilty” to possessing child pornography. He
maintained a large quantity of pornographic images and disturbing
photographs depicting teenage boys and young men all of which was
appropriately before the jury at punishment. [Scott] demonstrated a
sophisticated and premeditated pattern of luring and recording
teenage boys in the shower on multiple occasions. These recordings
were kept as part of a larger collection of homoerotic pornography.
[defense counsel] also argued without objection that [Scott]’s family
members would testify that Scott was a successful, career educator,
had serious medical problems and a family that loved him (although
they declined to appear at trial).
The habeas court recommends that we deny relief.
III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
A. The Law
Scott–10
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the effective assistance of
counsel. Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906, 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see U.S. C ONST.
amend. VI. To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an applicant must
prove that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the
deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Ex parte Martinez, 330
S.W.3d 891, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Under the first prong of Strickland, an applicant must prove deficient performance
by showing that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688–89. An objective standard of reasonableness
is defined by prevailing professional norms at the time of trial, and there is a presumption
that counsel’s performance conformed to those norms. Id. To overcome the presumption,
an applicant must rely on evidence firmly rooted in the record,7 unless no reasonable trial
strategy could justify counsel’s conduct. Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102–03 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). When no reasonable trial strategy could justify counsel’s conduct, his
conduct is deficient as a matter of law, regardless of whether the record adequately
reflects counsel’s motivations for employing that strategy. Id. We review the performance
of counsel by considering the totality of the circumstances as they existed at the time of
trial, without the benefit of hindsight or by relying on only isolated circumstances at trial.
See Ex parte Flores, 387 S.W.3d 626, 633–34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
7
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688–89; Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137, 142–43 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2011).
Scott–11
To prove prejudice in this context, an applicant must prove that a reasonable
probability exists that, but for counsel’s deficient conduct, the punishment jury would
have returned a more favorable verdict (i.e., a lesser punishment). Ex parte Rogers, 369
S.W.3d 858, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). A reasonable probability is one that is
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. Id. at 862–63.
B. Defense’s Strategy
Because Scott’s ineffective-assistance claims turn on the defense’s strategy, we
review that strategy now. By the time of trial, Scott was about 70 years old, and because
he had no criminal history, he was probation eligible on the child-pornography and the
possession-or-promotion charges.8 T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. art. 42.12, § 4(d)(7). Trial
counsel did not believe that the State could prove the inducing-a-sexual-performance-by-
a-minor charges because Scott did not induce the children to masturbate in the shower,
and because Scott was probation eligible on the other charges, the strategy was to fight
the inducing charges but to ask the jury for mercy and to recommend probation for the
other charges. To support his probation argument, counsel cited Scott’s advanced age and
deteriorating health,9 claiming that any sentence of confinement was tantamount to a
8
Although Scott argued for probation on the child-pornography charges and possession-
or-promotion charges, he was not eligible for probation on the inducing-a-sexual-performance-
by-a-child charges because no defendant can be placed on jury recommended probation if they
are convicted of that crime. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 42.12, § 4(d)(7).
9
For example, the evidence showed that he has lymphoma (although it is currently in
remission), neurosyphilis, gastrointestinal problems, and that he had a stroke while incarcerated
pending trial.
Scott–12
death sentence, and that even though Scott admittedly was addicted to pornography and
technology, his addictions could be controlled by “close supervision.” Despite this, the
defense acknowledged during its closing that, based on the facts of the case alone, the
jury might “max out” Scott and the judge might stack some of his sentences, but counsel
implored them not to do that.
The jury convicted Scott of all nine counts and sentenced him to the maximum
term of confinement on each count, and the judge stacked Scott’s sentences for inducing
and possession-or-promotion.10 However, on appeal, the defense’s argument regarding the
inducement charges bore fruit. The court of appeals reversed those convictions and
entered acquittals based on insufficient evidence because the State did not prove that
Scott induced the children to masturbate. Scott, 173 S.W.3d at 864. On discretionary
review, this Court let the acquittals stand. Scott, 235 S.W.3d at 257.
C. Mitigating Evidence
The first issues we address are Scott’s claims that his attorney was ineffective
because he did not develop available mitigating evidence. According to Scott, trial
counsel should have called psychologist Dr. JoAnn Ondrovik; Scott’s sister, Quannah
Dixon; and one of Scott’s brothers, Michael Scott, to testify. He also asserts that, had he
been given the opportunity, he would have testified on his own behalf about his
mitigating circumstances.
10
The judge did not have the authority to stack the child-pornography convictions.
Scott–13
1. Dr. JoAnn Ondrovik
Scott contends that his counsel should have called Dr. JoAnn Ondrovik to testify
because she would have stated that Scott was remorseful for his actions. According to
trial counsel, however, he chose not to call Ondrovik to testify for two reasons. First, it
was her opinion that, even though Scott was remorseful, she did not think that he could be
successful in her program. Second, Ondrovik was hostile once she arrived at the
courthouse under order because she was exchanging Christmas presents with her family
when she was summoned.
While it is true that she would have testified that Scott was remorseful for his
actions, her testimony would have also severely undercut the defensive strategy that Scott
could be rehabilitated if he were placed on probation. Based on this, we cannot say that
trial counsel employed an unreasonable strategy and was ineffective for not calling
Ondrovick to testify. Because the habeas court’s conclusion is supported by the record,
we adopt its conclusion.
2. Scott’s Siblings
Dixon and Michael stated in their affidavits that they would have testified about
Scott’s generous and giving nature,11 his troubled childhood, his longstanding health
issues, and his unblemished record as an educator for 40 years. They also said that they
11
Dixon stated that Scott sold her and her husband a house he owned for $1.00 and helped
pay for two of Dixon’s granddaughters to go to college. He also helped Dixon pay off the
mortgage on her second home and wrote to her from prison urging her to buy herself a new car
and television with money from his bank account.
Scott–14
asked trial counsel whether they should testify at the punishment phase and that counsel
told them that they would not be needed. Trial counsel disagrees, however, and says that
he spoke to Dixon and Michael on multiple occasions and that he did ask them to testify,
but both refused to attend the trial.12
The habeas judge found trial counsel’s affidavits credible, and because that finding
is supported by the record, we adopt it. Ex parte Harleston, 431 S.W.3d 67, 70–71 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Counsel cannot be faulted for failing to call family members to testify
about Scott’s good character when they refused to appear.
3. Scott’s Proposed Testimony
Finally, Scott said that he would have testified about his longstanding health
issues, including his depression and suicide attempts, and that he was remorseful for what
he did to the kids. According to trial counsel, it was a strategic decision not to call Scott
to testify about his health issues. At least one jailer told counsel that Scott acted different
in jail than he did when he was in the courtroom, which corroborated the State’s argument
that Scott was malingering. The habeas court’s finding that trial counsel’s affidavits were
credible is supported by the record, and we adopt the court’s conclusion that defense
counsel was not deficient for failing to call Scott to testify.
12
Scott’s brother and sister claim that, but for defense counsel telling them that they did
not need to testify, they would have appeared in court and testified as character witnesses.
However, if Scott’s siblings would have attended the trial to testify on his behalf, it is not clear
why they did not at least attend the trial to support him as observers. We do note, however, that
trial counsel argued in closing that Scott had a good family that cared for him even though they
could not be at trial.
Scott–15
Trial counsel did not, however, address Scott’s claim that he would have testified
that he was remorseful. We address it now. On the one hand, Scott’s testimony would
have provided the only evidence of remorse (given that his siblings refused to testify), and
had the jury heard that evidence, it could have returned a lesser sentence. On the other
hand, the jury may have found Scott’s testimony utterly incredible given that he pled
guilty to possession of child pornography but pled not guilty to the inducing and the
possession-or-promotion charges. It might also have believed such testimony was
disingenuous based on Scott’s pattern of behavior and how long it went on. Scott sought
out teenage boys as soon as he moved to Paris, and once he found a few, he immediately
began grooming them. Eventually he manipulated them into showering at his house so
that he could surreptitiously record them. It was later discovered that Scott had recorded
almost every shower the children took over a six-month period, adjusting the camera and
installing lights so that he could see the naked boys better.
When trial counsel fails to provide his reasoning for taking or not taking action, we
will find counsel’s performance deficient only if the conduct was so outrageous that no
competent attorney would have engaged in it. Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 101. It is the
applicant’s responsibility to overcome the strong presumption that counsel made a
reasonable strategic decision. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 101.
Here, Scott has failed to rebut the presumption that his attorney employed a reasonable
trial strategy because the impact of Scott’s testimony would have been difficult to gauge.
Scott–16
We cannot say that any competent attorney would have called Scott to testify under these
circumstances.13
B. Failure to Object to Stacking of Sentences 14
Next, Scott alleges that his counsel was deficient because he did not object to the
13
Although not identified as a claim for relief in his writ application or memorandum of
law in support of his writ application, Scott mentions in his affidavits, albeit in passing, that he
would have testified at the punishment phase if he had known that he had the right to do so.
In the interest of justice we will address the issue. The United States Supreme Court has
held that an accused has the federal constitutional right to testify, Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44,
49 (1987) (constitutional right to testify derives from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
amendments of the United States Constitution), and the Texas Constitution provides that the
accused “shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both . . . .” TEX . CONST .
art. I § 10. This Court reviews such claims under the ordinary Strickland standard. Johnson v.
State, 169 S.W.3d 223, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (federal constitutional right to remain
silent); Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56–57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (state constitutional
right to remain silent). That is, the applicant must show that, but for his attorney’s deficient
advice, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been
different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. A reasonable probability is one that is sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. Rogers, 369 S.W.3d at 862–63.
Here, Scott has not shown that his counsel was deficient. The habeas court believed trial
counsel’s affidavit but not those of Scott or his siblings. Trial counsel asserted that, “[w]ithout
[Scott’s] assistance in showing his human side, I was rather hamstrung on presenting anything
other than what the evidence showed.” The habeas court was free to believe counsel’s affidavit
that Scott would not help to show the jury his human side, and it was free to disbelieve Scott’s
affidavits that he did not know that he had the right to testify. Furthermore, we have found no
evidence in the record (other than Scott’s affidavits) that he did not know that he could testify or
that he wanted to and was prevented from doing so. It does, however, contain some evidence to
the contrary. During voir dire, defense counsel told the jury that Scott would be exercising his
right to remain silent (i.e., he would not testify). It follows that Scott could have testified if he did
not exercise his right to remain silent. Although this is not conclusive, it is some evidence that
Scott did know that he could testify.
14
Scott also appears to directly challenge his sentences as violative of the Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To the extent that he directly attacks
his convictions, his claim is not cognizable in post-conviction writ proceedings. Curry v. State,
910 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (failure to preserve Eight Amendment claim at trial
forfeits the claim for appellate review).
Scott–17
stacking of his sentences, which forfeited any claim on appeal that his sentences were
impermissibly stacked.
After reviewing the record and the habeas court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law, we adopt its findings and conclusions that trial counsel was not deficient for
failing to object to the stacking of Scott’s sentences because such an objection was
futile.15 To prevail on an improper-stacking claim, Scott would have to show that the trial
court abused its discretion, but he cannot do so on this record because the judge’s ruling
was authorized by law.16 T EX. P ENAL C ODE § 3.03(b)(2)(A); Bonilla v. State, 452 S.W.3d
811, 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
C. Final Argument Issues
1. Defense’s Closing Argument
Next, Scott maintains that his trial counsel was deficient when he stated during
closing that,
I have developed a relationship with Mr. Scott, and I have developed a
relationship with his family, and I do feel sorry for him. You can call me a
15
Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
16
Hammond v. State, 465 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). In Beedy v. State, 194
S.W.3d 595, 597 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006), the court of appeals explained that,
An abuse of discretion generally will be found only if (1) the trial court imposes
consecutive sentences when the law requires concurrent sentences, (2) the trial
court imposes concurrent sentences when the law requires consecutive ones, or (3)
the trial court otherwise fails to observe the statutory requirements pertaining to
sentencing.
Id. (citation omitted).
Scott–18
fool for that, but there is reason for that. Mr. Scott is a human being just like
anybody else. He deserves compassion just like anybody else. I saw what
he’s got, I saw what was put before you. A lot of [the] time I would have
come in here and been a lot harder on this police officer or objected during
the punishment phase of ya’ll [sic] seeing that stuff. But there is no way that
I can disguise his addiction. There is no way I can do that. It would be
foolish for me to try to put that over on you. But what you’re seeing in these
clips and what you are dealing with is a man who is mesmerized by
technology and by sex. And if you think that’s an isolated incident, you are
wrong. I’m going to get to that in just a second.
* * *
The thing that’s a problem with Orian is he has never been under any type
of supervision. Nobody has ever supervised him. In this state, we have
probation departments that look after these people on intensive supervision
and they can see them up to three times a week. They can monitor him. That
is his problem. That’s why we are here today, nobody has monitored his
addiction. He can get treated. He can get sex offender treatment.
The right to effective assistance of counsel encompasses closing arguments of the
defense. Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Closing arguments involve
inherently tactical decisions that must be tailored to the strategy of the defense based on
events that transpired during trial. Id. Accordingly, deference to counsel’s strategic
decisions during closing arguments is particularly important because of the wealth of
legitimate strategies that can be employed, and those decisions will be second-guessed
only if there is no plausible basis for the attorney’s actions. Id.Scott argues that his counsel wrongfully implied that he had abused children
before when he said, “if you think that’s an isolated incident, you are wrong.” We do not
agree with Scott’s interpretation of the record. When counsel made the complained of
Scott–19
comment, he was referring to his client being mesmerized by technology and sex, and the
fact that many people are addicted to technology and sex. According to the defense, lots
of people videotape sexual acts, including people in Paris17 and possibly even people the
jurors know. In making this argument, the defense sought to further its probation
argument by putting Scott’s addictions into perspective as “not that bad” compared to the
rest of the community and by arguing that his addiction could be controlled if he was
placed on probation. Because we do not agree with Scott’s interpretation of the record,
and based on our own interpretation, we conclude that trial counsel was not deficient.
2. State’s First Closing Argument
Next, Scott argues that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to
numerous allegedly improper parts of the State’s final argument. According to him, the
cited arguments were not supported by the facts, were not reasonable deductions from the
evidence, and were outside the record. Appropriate jury argument generally falls within
only four areas: (1) summation of the evidence; (2) reasonable deductions from the
evidence; (3) answer to argument of opposing counsel; and (4) a plea for law
enforcement. Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717, 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
a. First Claim
In the first excerpt, Scott complains that the State implied that he had abused other
17
Defense counsel told a story that his doctor was discovered to be a pedophile that
recorded children engaging in sexual acts. The doctor, he explained, was popular in the
community and was a Tom Selleck type.
Scott–20
boys and that his counsel was deficient for not objecting to that argument. The State
argued that,
He has moved from state to state to state to state to state. He also worked as
a teacher. You heard him tell the boys that. That ought to scare the daylights
out of you. How many victims, how long of a trail of victims, has he left?
He had Beta tapes of himself having sex with other men, other males. And
you saw what his preference is.
Here, the State suggested that, because Scott moved around a lot and worked as a teacher,
he may have victimized other male children. The record supports that Scott had moved
around and had worked as a teacher for 40 years, so those arguments constitute a
summation of the evidence. However, the State’s implication that Scott may have left a
“trail of victims” when he moved from state to state was improper.18
Even though the State’s argument was improper, that does not inexorably lead to
the conclusion that trial counsel was deficient for not objecting because counsel may have
had a strategic reason for not doing so.
Trial counsel does not specifically address his reasons for failing to object to this
portion of the State’s argument, but the habeas court concluded that counsel may have
18
Dealing with a similar issue, we characterized the question as whether,
[T]he prosecutor’s reference to the ‘victims of other crimes’ and ‘the ones who
never come and tell you about it’ was an appeal to the jury to consider the impact
of their verdict on sexually abused children in general, or whether, the
prosecutor’s argument called on the jury to consider either the existence of other
adolescent victims of the appellant or to assess the appellant further punishment
because other children have been victimized.
Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
Scott–21
made a strategic decision not to object because that would have drawn the jury’s attention
to the argument. Because we do not know the reasons counsel did not object to the State’s
argument, we will examine the remainder of the record to determine whether any
reasonable trial strategy could justify counsel’s conduct. Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 102.
The record shows that trial counsel chose to respond to the State’s improper argument
during his closing, instead of objecting to the State’s argument during its closing. Counsel
told the jury that, even though the State was “portraying [Scott] as a predator and a child
molester,” “that is not what is front of you today.” He also stated that “[t]here is no
evidence here that he ever touched [the victims] and there is no evidence here that he’s
ever molested any children.” Scott’s trial counsel choice to respond to the State during his
closing argument, instead of objecting during the State’s initial closing argument, was a
reasonable trial strategy.
b. Second Claim
Next, Scott complains that the State improperly argued that he did not call any
punishment witnesses,
[Q]uite frankly, what’s most telling of all about his character is who has
come here to testify and tell you what a good person he is? If he was really
a saint, where are those people? Where is a former principle [sic], where is
a former neighbor, where is anybody to come and tell you something about
him? They are not here. That speaks volumes as to this man’s character.
That speaks volumes to the trail of victims that he’s left behind, and you
know that to be true.
Sometimes the State may permissibly argue that a defendant failed to call
Scott–22
punishment witnesses. In McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1981), the prosecution suggested that the defense could have called a number of
witnesses to testify on McKenzie’s behalf, like a minister to testify that McKenzie was
still welcome at church, a college classmate that would tell the jury that McKenzie is still
his friend, an employer who would say that McKenzie was welcome to return to his job,
or a neighbor that would testify McKenzie would be welcomed back to the neighborhood.
Id. at 218–20. We held that those arguments were improper because there was no
evidence that such witnesses existed or were available to testify. Id. at 221. On the other
hand, in Mosley v. State, 686 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), the State
observed that Mosley did not call any witnesses to rebut its argument that he had bad
character, “not a mother, not [a] father, not [a] brother, not [a] sister . . . .” We did not
find that argument to be improper because the State never speculated that such witnesses
actually existed or about what they would have said had they been called to testify.
In this case, the State first referred to Scott’s general character and the fact that the
defense called no character witnesses. It then suggested that Scott could have called a
principal from one of the many schools he taught at (Scott taught at a number of schools
over a 40-year period) or a former neighbor to talk about his reputation before he was
arrested on child-abuse charges. It is clear from the context of the State’s entire argument
that the State was not referring to actual people, vis-à-vis, a specific principal or a specific
neighbor or what such people would testify to. Rather, the inference the State urged the
Scott–23
jury to draw was that, even though Scott had been a long-time educator who worked at
various schools and had lived in various places, he did not call a single witness at the
punishment phase to testify about his good character. Id. We also note that, unlike in
McKenzie, here the State did not speculate as to what specific character testimony any
potential good-character witnesses would have given had one been called; whereas, in
McKenzie, the prosecutor suggested that a minister could have testified that McKenzie
was still welcome at church, a college classmate could have testified that McKenzie is
still his friend, an employer could testify that McKenzie was welcome to return to his job,
or a neighbor could testify that McKenzie would be welcomed back to the neighborhood.
Based on all of this, we conclude that counsel was not deficient because the State’s
argument was permissible.
c. Third Claim
Scott also argues that his attorney was ineffective in failing to object to the
following portion of the State’s closing argument,
Ask yourself this one question, why did he come to your county, why did he
come to your community? The obvious answer is victims of opportunity.
There was a time here where you could open your door Saturday morning
and have your boy and girl go out and have fun, be back for
dinner . . . . Thanks to Mr. Scott and others like him, we can’t do
that . . . you always have to be on the lookout for the Mr. Scotts of the
world . . . . [W]e live in fear for what he will do to our kids. Or do you want
to take a stand and send not only him a message-make no mistake about it,
he certainly appears to be an elderly gentlemen. He may not have long to
live on this earth, but whether it’s two minutes or twenty years, he has been
here too long . . . if someone had done something 30 or 40 years ago, we
wouldn’t be here. But they didn’t.
Scott–24
Considered in its entirety, we conclude that this was a permissible plea for law
enforcement. It was not improper for the State to ask the jury to send a message to Scott
and the community that his type of behavior, and that of other child predators, is
unconscionable and will not be tolerated. Also, even if the State’s argument was
improper, we cannot say that counsel’s choice not to object was part of an unreasonable
trial strategy. The State had made a similar argument earlier in its closing, and defense
counsel responded to both arguments in his closing. Trial counsel’s choice to respond to
the State during his closing argument, instead of objecting during the State’s initial
closing argument, was a reasonable trial strategy.
3. State’s Final Closing Argument
Scott also directs us to various excerpts from the State’s final closing argument
that he argues his counsel should have objected to. We address each contention in turn.
a. First Claim
Scott first complains about the following argument made by the State during final
summation,
Let me make this clear. If this man gets probation today, he gets up and he
walks out that door and he goes home and he lives in a house and he does
whatever he wants to do, other than the 30 minutes or so that he has to
report to a probation officer each week. Do you want that man back in our
community offending teenage boys again? Or do you want to send him to
Oklahoma to see his family to offend in Oklahoma or in Indiana? He came
here because the other states didn’t do anything, possibly. And look what he
did here. Probation is not the appropriate punishment in this case.
The State’s argument that Scott was able to abuse the victims because “the other
Scott–25
states didn’t do anything, possibly,” was allegedly improper because it went outside of the
record. The question is whether trial counsel was deficient when he failed to object to that
allegedly improper argument. We conclude that he was not. The State made a similar
argument during its initial closing, which the defense responded to. Objecting to the
State’s argument again would have only drawn the jury’s attention to that argument. It
also could have undercut the defense’s strategy of Scott accepting responsibility for his
behavior and pleading for mercy from the jury.
b. Second Claim
Next, Scott contends that the State made an improper argument when it asserted
that,
He’s got this sexual addiction but we haven’t heard proof of that. The man
is a pedophile. He preys on young kids and takes advantage of them. He
wants to blame it on the [I]nternet. I don’t believe the [I]nternet was around
when Beta tapes[19] were invented, so we are not going to blame it on the
[I]nternet.
Scott complains that the State’s argument referring to him as a pedophile was
outside of the record and not a fair deduction from the evidence. The habeas court
disagreed, concluding that counsel’s failure to object was reasonable because Scott could
have properly been characterized as a pedophile. We agree with the habeas court and
adopt its conclusion. It is a fair deduction from the evidence that Scott is a pedophile. He
pled guilty to multiple counts of possession of child pornography, which was properly
19
Betamax tapes are a type of video cassette that were developed by Sony and were
released in 1975.
Scott–26
before the jury, and the jury convicted him of three counts of inducing a sexual
performance by a child and promoting a sexual performance by a child.20 The State also
presented evidence that Scott engaged in a pattern of grooming his victims and
surreptitiously recording them masturbating and that he was in possession of a substantial
amount of child pornography. Based on this, the State asked the jury to draw a reasonable
deduction from the evidence that Scott is sexually attracted to children.
c. Third Claim
Next, Scott argues that the following closing argument made by the State was
improper,
How long has he been taking photographs of young kids? How long has he
moved from state to state to state to lure in and throw out that net for 14 and
15 year old boys? It’s not an [I]nternet addiction, ladies and gentlemen.
The evidence shows that Scott was a teacher who had lived in various places. It
also showed that he had photographs in a shoe box of young children and that he lured in
the young victims in this case by grooming them. From the context of the State’s
argument, it appears that it was asking the jury to infer that Scott may have tried to groom
other children. Even if it did, that argument was not a reasonable deduction from the
evidence, and it went outside of the record because there is no evidence to support that
proposition. However, we do not believe that counsel was deficient. As we have noted,
20
Scott argues that the pedophile comment was improper because pedophilia is a
psychiatric disorder and that the evidence does not support such a diagnosis. However, the State
was not portraying Scott as a person diagnosed with pedophilia; rather, it was arguing that Scott
was sexually attracted to children based on the evidence.
Scott–27
the defense had already responded to a similar argument and repeatedly objecting to the
State’s argument would have served only to draw the jury’s attention to argument.
d. Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Claims
Scott’s next claims stem from the following excerpt,
[PROSECUTOR]: What was Mr. Scott’s intent? Do you think it was just to
get these boys in there and photograph them and do nothing else? That’s so
far from the truth. As soon as he moved here, he threw out the bait, threw
out the net; by the way, the teenage boys is what I need. And he got them.
[Defense counsel] told you in opening statement that this was a sick
old man, been going on five years. He didn’t mean that he was physically
sick. He meant that he was a pervert and has been a pervert all of his life.
That’s what he is. That’s what he is. I hate to be that -- use those kinds of
descriptions, but that’s the fact of the matter.
Now, think about what would have happened if this had continued
on. There is no question that these boys would have been sexually assaulted.
[DEFENSE]: Your Honor, I’m going to object. That misstates the evidence
and it’s beyond the scope of the evidence.
[COURT]: I think it’s a fair assumption based on the record. The objection
is overruled.
[PROSECUTOR]: Look at the photographs, [not] just the five that were
introduced. Look what he has. Look at the thousands and consider the
thousands and thousands of images. Look at the videotapes that he’s kept
for himself having sex with a male for 25, 30 years. What do you think is
going to happen?
Look at the fact that he was in San Antonio not too long ago, hires a
male prostitute to come see him, videotapes that action and then discusses
[I]nternet pornography sites, child pornography sit[es] with this prostitute.
What does that tell you? Now, I think we need to be thankful that none of
that got that far, but what he’s facing here now is just as serious.
How do we know that the tapes that he made aren’t out there? He
had the capabilities in his bedroom to take one and record it. How do we
know that he didn’t sell that to this sea of people that exists? Think about
that.
Scott–28
i. Fourth Claim
First, Scott argues that the prosecutor’s argument speculating as to his intent and
whether his deviant behavior would continue to escalate was outside of the record.
However, even if that argument was outside of the record, defense counsel objected to it.
And, although counsel could have also asked for a curative instruction or requested a
mistrial, such actions would have been futile given that the judge overruled his objection.
ii. Fifth Claim
Next, Scott claims that the State crossed the line when it told the jury to consider,
not only the five photographs admitted into evidence, but also the “thousands and
thousands of images” police seized. We disagree. The argument was a proper summation
of the evidence. Five images were admitted into evidence, and it was agreed that those
five images were just a representative sample of all of the images seized from Scott.21
Even though only a few pictures were admitted into evidence, the jury was allowed to
consider all of the admitted evidence, including the testimony of Rhodes, who said that
police seized several CDs, DVDs, and 400 floppy disks containing pornography. He also
21
The State said as much in its closing arguments,
Good morning. First of all, I want to talk about the evidence that we have
introduced. We brought to you what we felt was sufficient for you to have a good
idea what it is. I apologize if you felt like we should have brought you every DVD
and showed you the thousands of images, but I didn’t want to do that. After
watching those movies yesterday, I didn’t think you did either. I think you have an
idea after listening to testimony as to what was in that material, and after looking
at those five photographs as being representative as to what the defendant had on
his computer.
Scott–29
testified that police found thousands of pornographic images on Scott’s computer and a
shoe box filled with pictures of boys swimming in a pool at what looked like a party.
Defense counsel was not deficient in failing to object to proper argument by the State.
iii. Sixth Claim
Finally, Scott argues that the State’s suggestion that he may have released or sold
the pictures or videos in his possession over the Internet was improper.22 We agree that
the argument was outside of the record. Although there was evidence that Scott
downloaded many of the images that were seized and that he frequented child
pornography websites, there was no evidence that he bought or sold child pornography.
The question then is whether defense counsel’s failure to object was a reasonable choice
under the totality of the circumstances as they existed at trial.
Because the record is devoid of any reasons for counsel’s failure to object, we
review it to determine whether counsel’s conduct was so outrageous that no competent
attorney would have engaged in it. Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 102–03. Here, it is
conceivable that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to object to the State’s
argument. The strategy was to implore the jury to be merciful and place Scott on
probation. Counsel could have reasonably believed that such objections would undercut
the defense’s plea for leniency. Counsel’s failure to object was not so outrageous that no
22
The habeas court found that the State never suggested that Scott sold the videotapes of
the boys showering over the Internet, but that finding is not supported by the record, and we do
not adopt it.
Scott–30
competent attorney would have engaged in it.23
D. Improper Comment
In Scott’s final claim, he argues that his counsel was deficient when he failed to
object to the trial judge’s comment that it was “a fair assumption based on the record”
that Scott would have eventually sexually assaulted the boys. He also asserts that counsel
was deficient because he did not request a mistrial. The habeas court concluded that
defense counsel may have made a strategic choice not to object because doing so would
only draw the jury’s attention to the judge’s comment.
“The trial judge shall maintain an attitude of impartiality throughout the trial.”
Lagrone v. State, 209 S.W. 411, 415 (1919). The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
states that the judge shall not, “at any stage of the proceeding previous to the return of the
verdict, make any remark calculated to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.” T EX.
C ODE C RIM. P ROC. art. 38.05. When a trial judge does make a comment on the weight of
the evidence, it constitutes reversible error only if the comment was “reasonably
calculated to prejudice the defendant’s rights.” Sharpe v. State, 648 S.W.2d 705, 706
(Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Scott argues that the judge’s statement was a comment on the
weight of the evidence because it showed the judge’s belief that, based on the evidence,
23
In his supplemental affidavit, defense counsel said that,
During the trial, I regularly watched the jurors to gauge their emotions and
reactions. It was obvious to me that hearing the teenage boys testify, watching the
videos admitted into evidence of them masturbating in a curtainless shower and
watching Mr. Scott simulate masturbation was repulsive to each and every juror.
Scott–31
Scott would have eventually sexually assaulted the boys. He also asserts that the comment
was reasonably calculated to injure his rights because the judge’s comment bolstered the
State’s argument that Scott was not deserving of a lesser sentence. According to him, this
is especially evident in light of the fact that the jury assessed the maximum punishment
and the judge stacked his sentences.
It is a close call whether the judge made an improper comment on the weight of
the evidence because the meaning of the comment is not clear. On the one hand, the
judge’s response could have meant that the State’s argument was proper because it was a
reasonable deduction from the evidence, which is a proper area of closing argument. On
the other hand, the judge’s comment could be read to mean that he was approving of the
State’s view of the evidence, which would be an improper comment.
In his affidavits, trial counsel does not specifically address his reasons for not
objecting, but even if we assume that the judge’s comment was improper, trial counsel
was not deficient. Directly preceding the judge’s comment, the defense had just objected
to the State’s argument. Counsel may have believed that it was unlikely that the judge,
who had just overruled counsel’s objection, would have sustained a defense objection that
he commented on the weight of the evidence. Counsel also may have believed that it was
best not to draw the jury’s attention to the judge’s comment or to the State’s improper
argument. At any rate, we cannot say that counsel’s conduct was so outrageous that no
competent attorney would have engaged in it.
Scott–32
E. Prejudice
The habeas court concluded that Scott was not prejudiced because the evidence of
guilt was overwhelming. We need not address the issue, however, having already
concluded that trial counsel performed effectively.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Scott has not proven that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at
the punishment phase of his trial, we deny relief.
Delivered: October 18, 2017
Publish