Opinion
No. 05-11-00102-CR
06-06-2012
ANTONIO DEION ANDERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appelle
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed June 6, 2012.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Five
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-71910-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Moseley
Antonio Deion Anderson was convicted of aggravated assault following a bench trial. On appeal, Anderson asserts he did not receive effective assistance of counsel and he did not sign a jury waiver authorizing a bench trial. The background and facts of the case are well-known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Anderson bases his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on his rejection of a plea bargain agreement and his claim his attorney erroneously believed he was eligible for probation if convicted. To successfully assert an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, an appellant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). An ineffective assistance claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and the record must “affirmatively demonstrate” the claim has merit. Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Generally, a silent record providing no explanation for counsel's actions will not overcome the strong presumption of reasonable assistance. See Rylander, 101 S.W.3d at 110-11.
Anderson did not file a motion for new trial or otherwise develop a record showing why his counsel engaged in the challenged conduct. See Goodspeed, 187 S.W.3d at 392. The silent record in this case cannot overcome the presumption of effective assistance of counsel. See id.; Rylander, 101 S.W.3d at 110-11.We overrule Anderson's first issue.
In his second issue, Anderson states “the Reporter's Record does not contain a signed and written 'Waiver of Jury Trial'” and the case must be reversed and remanded to the trial court. On October 12, 2011, a supplemental clerk's record was filed with this Court. The supplemental record contains a signed “Waiver of Jury” executed by Anderson. Because the record includes Anderson's signed waiver of his right to a jury trial, we overrule Anderson's second issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110102F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ANTONIO DEION ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00102-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Five of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Cause No. F10-71910-L).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Lang-Miers and Murphy participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 6, 2012.
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE