Opinion
No. 01-02-00831-CR
Opinion issued October 23, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 905337.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Crystal Louise Walker, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment, to aggravated robbery. The trial court assessed punishment at 10 years in prison. In two points of error, we determine (1) whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel during the punishment hearing and (2) whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of the cumulative effect of her trial counsel's errors in violation of her rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Tex. Const. art. I, § 10. We affirm.
Facts
The parties agreed that appellant's punishment would be assessed by the trial court after a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report was prepared. During the punishment hearing, appellant's attorney did not call any witnesses to testify on appellant's behalf. After her punishment was assessed, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence and a written notice of appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.State Constitutional Claims
In both points of error, appellant asserts that her attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel under Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. However, she does not brief her ineffective-assistance challenges separately for the state constitution and federal constitution. To have briefed her challenges grounded on the state constitution sufficiently, appellant should have provided separate supporting arguments for her state constitutional claims or should have argued that the state constitution offers her more protection than does the federal constitution. See Brown v. State , 943 S.W.2d 35, 36 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Garcia v. State , 919 S.W.2d 370, 388-89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Appellant did not do so. Therefore, appellant waived her challenges under the state constitution. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error to the extent that they are urged under the state constitution. See Brown , 943 S.W.2d at 36 n. 3.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In her first point of error, appellant contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel under the federal constitution during the punishment phase of trial. See U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV. In her second point of error, appellant contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel under the federal constitution because of the cumulative effect of her trial counsel's errors. Appellant relies on the same argument for both points of error; thus, we address them together. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that (1) counsel's performance was so deficient that he or she was not functioning as acceptable counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and (2) but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); Gamble v. State, 916 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). A defendant is not entitled to errorless counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). This standard applies at the punishment stage of non-capital trials. See Hernandez v. State , 988 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel must be firmly founded in the record. Bone v. State , 77 S.W.3d 828, 835 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Appellant "must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy." Gamble , 916 S.W.2d at 93. In the absence of contrary evidence in the record, we must generally presume that appellant's trial counsel had a plausible reason for his or her actions. Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). In determining whether counsel was ineffective, we view the totality of the circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 813. The only evidence that appellant submitted with her motion for new trial was her own affidavit, complaining of various acts of ineffective assistance allegedly made by her trial counsel. Appellant specifically alleged that her counsel was deficient because, during the punishment phase of trial, he did not (1) call any witnesses to testify or (2) call appellant to testify, even though appellant wished to testify. Appellant asserts that her counsel did not call any of 16 family members, who would have testified that she was a "strong candidate for probation." In addition, appellant asserts that her bondsperson would have testified that she would have employed appellant if appellant were on probation. Appellant argues that she was harmed because "the background of her life, the need to care for her three children, and the love of her support group was not before the Court before sentencing." However, the trial court was fully aware of appellant's background and family situation because it was included in the pre-sentence report. An attorney's decision whether to call witnesses is generally considered a matter of trial strategy. Rodd v. State, 886 S.W.2d 381, 384 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ ref'd). Appellant has not provided any evidence that explains trial counsel's reasons for not calling any of her witnesses. Even if appellant had shown that she had available witnesses whose testimony would have been beneficial, she must still overcome the presumption that her counsel's actions were based on sound trial strategy. Because appellant did not offer any evidence of the reasons for her counsel's actions, we must generally presume that counsel's actions fell within "the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065; Gamble , 916 S.W.2d at 93. Appellant next claims that her counsel was ineffective because he failed to call appellant to testify during the punishment phase of trial, even though she wished to testify. The record is otherwise silent about whether appellant told counsel that she wished to testify and about the reasons that appellant's trial counsel did not call her to testify. Additionally, the record shows that the trial court gave appellant the opportunity to speak on her own behalf after finding her guilty of the offense:Trial Court: Is there anything you want to say before I sentence you?
Appellant: Yes. I can't stand here and say that the crime that I committed was wrong — was right, because you know it was wrong. I'm here to stand up for my responsibilities and show you that since this has happened, you know, I've been clean, I haven't did [sic] anything. I work. I do have a job. My boss lady is willing to help me get a job with her, but as of today, I do work. I do have a normal job at a grocery store.Because we are not provided with any contrary evidence, we must presume that counsel's actions were reasonable. On this record, we will not speculate about the reasons that appellant's counsel did not call her to testify. See Gamble , 916 S.W.2d at 93. Appellant has failed to show that her trial counsel's representation was unacceptably deficient. Therefore, appellant has not shown that individual or cumulative error deprived her of her constitutional rights. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error.Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court.