Opinion
Nos. 01-02-00693-CR, 01-02-00694-CR, 01-02-00695-CR
Opinion issued November 20, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 56th District Court, Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 01CR1482, 01CR1483, and 01CR1484.
Panel consists of Justices HEDGES, NUCHIA, and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant, Orlando Orly Filoteo, of three counts of aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed by the trial court at confinement for 25 years for each conviction, to run concurrently. On appeal, appellant contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that acquittal was required if appellant's weapon was incapable of being fired; (3) the trial court erred in admitting, during the punishment phase of the trial, a lab report from a prior arrest indicating appellant was in possession of cocaine; and (4) appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the early-morning hours of August 9, 2001, appellant and Jason Merit entered Curly's Country Club, a neighborhood bar, and robbed Christle Rose Biernan, John Marcini, and Nancy Louise Rhodes, complainants. All three complainants testified at trial that appellant was armed with a large caliber firearm, resembling a shotgun, wrapped in a towel. Ms. Rhodes and Mr. Marcini also testified that appellant carried a pistol in his pants. Appellant testified during trial and admitted to committing the robberies. However, appellant asserted that he did not carry a pistol during the robberies. Appellant also claimed that the object wrapped in the towel was not a firearm, but rather a paint-ball gun. Further, appellant claimed that the paint-ball gun was neither loaded with paint balls nor equipped with a Co2 cylinder required for firing the gun. During appellant's testimony, trial counsel introduced into evidence a paint-ball gun identical to that used in the robberies. On cross-examination, the State asked appellant to read a warning etched onto the paint-ball gun. Appellant read the warning as follows:"Warning, this is not a toy. Misuse may cause serious injury or death. Wear eye protection designed for the paint ball." We must have — "Paint ball use must be worn by the user or any person within range. Read operation manual before using. Brass Eagle Rogers."After closing arguments, the jury deliberated for four hours before returning a verdict of guilty on all three aggravated robbery charges. During appellant's punishment hearing, the State introduced testimony by Officer Charles Pistone, Jr. to the effect that Officer Pistone had arrested appellant on April 4, 2001, for possession of cocaine. The State also introduced a lab report indicating that the substance Officer Pistone had found on appellant was cocaine. The trial court admitted the lab report over appellant's objection that it was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure. After hearing the evidence presented at the punishment hearing, the trial court rendered judgment and imposed sentence on June 20, 2002. On July 19, 2002, appellant filed a motion for new trial and on August 12, 2002, a hearing was held on the motion. After hearing testimony from appellant's trial counsel and appellant himself, the trial court denied the motion for new trial.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
In his third point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing "to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence as it related to whether the paint ball gun Appellant used or exhibited was loaded after the evidence fairly raised the issue." Relatedly, in his fourth point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it should acquit appellant if it found the paint-ball gun was incapable of being fired.A. Instruction on Circumstantial Evidence
In his third point of error, appellant asserts that "a jury charge on circumstantial evidence should have been given because the State, as the trial court recognized, had no direct evidence that the paint ball gun was loaded or even capable of being fired." Two decades ago, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was improper. Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). Eight years after Hankins, the Court discarded the reasonable hypothesis of guilt analytical construct all together. See Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 161-162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (stating that reasonable hypothesis of guilt analytical construct was inappropriate both as jury instruction and as standard of review). In Geesa, however, the court opined that abrogation of the reasonable hypothesis of guilt analytical construct necessitated the requirement of a full definitional instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt. Id. at 161. The requirement enunciated in Geesa was soon found to be untenable, and nine years later, the court overruled that portion of Geesa which required trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Appellant invites this court to interpret Paulson as providing for a return to the status quo ante ( i.e., the pre- Hankins circumstantial evidence jury charge requirement). We decline this invitation. The Paulson court specifically limited its decision to that portion of Geesa which required trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt." See id. at 573. No mention was made by the court of the Hankins decision or to that portion of Geesa providing for the abrogation of the reasonable hypothesis of guilt analytical construct. To find that a repudiation of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" instruction necessarily means a return to jury instructions on circumstantial evidence would be to follow the same logic criticized by the court in Paulson. See id. at 572. We conclude that a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence is improper. Therefore, we hold that the trial court committed no error in failing to give such an instruction in the instant case. Appellant's third point of error is overruled.B. Instruction on Acquittal
In his fourth point of error, appellant asserts that the evidence fairly raised the issue of whether the paint-ball gun was capable of being fired. Appellant further contends that the paint-ball gun did not constitute a deadly weapon if it was not in or of such a condition that it could be fired. Therefore, appellant concludes that the trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction as to whether the paint-ball gun was capable of being fired. A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the evidence. See Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). However, the term "defense" should not be used for an issue that has not been specifically labeled as such by the Texas Legislature. Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245, 250 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). A defendant is not entitled to an instruction on a defensive issue if the issue goes no further than to merely negate an element of the offense alleged by the State in its indictment. See id. at 250. Therefore, a defense which is not recognized by the legislature as either a "defense" or as an "affirmative defense" does not warrant a separate instruction. Id. The issue of whether the paint ball gun could have been fired does nothing more than tend to negate an element of the offense of aggravated robbery ( i.e., that appellant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery). It does not raise an issue recognized by the legislature as a defense or affirmative defense, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003), and therefore does not warrant a jury instruction. Indeed, since the issue was adequately accounted for in the general jury charge on aggravated robbery, a special instruction for the issue would have been an improper comment on the evidence. Giesberg, 984 S.W.2d at 250. We hold that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that appellant was entitled to an acquittal if the jury found the paint-ball gun incapable of being fired. Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled.ADMISSION OF COCAINE
In his fifth point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the lab report indicating that the substance Officer Pistone found on him was cocaine. Appellant contends that the lab report was inadmissible because it was the fruit of an illegal search. Specifically, appellant contends that Officer Pistone lacked the authority to conduct the pat-down search in which the cocaine was discovered because appellant's actions did not warrant the search. Before a police officer may subject a person to a pat-down search, the officer must be able to "point to specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968); O'Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548, 551 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). We consider the officer's action in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time, and not on the officer's actual state of mind at the time the challenged action occurred. O'Hara, 27 S.W.3d at 551. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed. Id. The issue is not whether the officer was "scared" by the threat of danger, but rather whether a reasonably prudent person would justifiably believe that his safety or that of others was in danger. Id. During the punishment hearing, Officer Pistone testified that, while patrolling for car burglars, he noticed appellant peering into a parked car at around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 4, 2001. Officer Pistone also testified that the following occurred when he approached appellant:A. After I asked him questions and found out it wasn't his vehicle, friend's vehicle, with his jittery movements I went ahead and pat
searched him down for weapons. Seemed out of the ordinary for me. I pat searched him down for weapons and I felt an object in his pocket.
Q. You say jittery, jerky movements. Stand up show me what you mean.
A. At first, when I told him to pat search him, just as an example, told him to put his hands on the vehicle I was going to pat search him, and he jumps off the car and turned around toward me. Jittery movement is unannounced movement, not normal, unexpected to me.
Q. So, you decided to conduct a pat down search?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. Just from the nervousness from him. I felt uneasy talking to him or anything.During the pat down search, appellant acknowledged that he was carrying a knife. Officer Pistone, therefore, searched appellant's pockets. In one of appellant's pockets, Officer Pistone found a bag filled with what was later determined to be cocaine. We conclude that appellant's conduct was such that a reasonable person in Officer Pistone's position would have been justified in fearing for his safety. We further conclude that once appellant acknowledged that he was carrying a knife, Officer Pistone was entitled to conduct a search of appellant's pockets to find the knife and any other weapons. Because the lab report was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the report over appellant's objection. Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
In his first two points of error, appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective under the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, and that the court abused its discretion by denying the motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.A. Standard of Review
We review the denial of a motion for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Laidley v. State, 966 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). Under both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, an appellant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show that (1) counsel's performance was so deficient that he was not functioning as acceptable counsel under the sixth amendment, and (2) but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Gamble v. State, 916 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). It is the defendant's burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064; Gamble, 916 S.W.2d at 93. A defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. At 2064; Gamble, 916 S.W.2d at 93. Trial counsel is not ineffective simply because the trial strategy implemented did not produce the desired result. Delrio v. State, 840 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).B. The Paint-Ball Gun
Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he (1) failed to discover that the paint-ball gun he introduced into evidence had a warning to the effect that misuse of the gun could cause serious injury or death, (2) refused to "seriously consider" introducing a picture of the replica gun in lieu of the actual replica, and (3) failed to advance his defensive theory without introducing a replica paint-ball gun. Appellant further claims that the introduction of the paint-ball gun with the complained-of warning filled in the gaps of the State's case and effectively sabotaged appellant's defensive theory. During the motion for new trial hearing, appellant's trial counsel testified he considered the evidence that appellant committed the robberies in question to be overwhelming; however, trial counsel hoped to receive a jury instruction on the reduced offense of robbery. Therefore, trial counsel presented the trial theory that, although appellant committed the robberies, appellant did not use a deadly weapon in the commission of the robberies. Trial counsel's trial strategy was to convince the jury that appellant used only a partially dismantled paint-ball gun during the robberies and not a shotgun and pistol as the State argued. Trial counsel testified to the importance of introducing a replica paint-ball gun as follows:Well, I thought it was important because the witnesses had testified — none of the witnesses obviously besides Mr. Filoteo testified that it was a paint ball gun.
They all described the weapon, and I know at least one or two of them said it looked like a shotgun. Someone else may have said it looked like either a shotgun or a large caliber weapon.
And I thought it was important to show that with a towel draped over a portion of it, that it could be — the paint ball gun could easily be mistaken for a shotgun or a large caliber weapon.
That's why I thought it was important because I thought that was the beginning of trying to convince the jury that it was something other than a gun, a firearm.Concerning the possibility that the State might introduce evidence that a paint-ball gun was a deadly weapon, trial counsel testified as follows:
There was never any question in my mind and I didn't think there was ever going to be a question in the jury's mind that a loaded paint ball gun with the Co2 cylinder on it was a deadly weapon.
I never thought that that was a serious consideration. Our case was going to rise or fall on whether or not the jurors believed Mr. Filoteo when he said that it was not loaded and it didn't have the Co2 cylinder on it so that it was incapable of being fired.Trial counsel's defense strategy depended on convincing the jury that the object appellant held wrapped in a towel was a disassembled paint-ball gun and not a shotgun. To do this, trial counsel determined that it was necessary to introduce a replica paint-ball gun and exhibit how it might be mistaken for a shot-gun when wrapped in a towel. Trial counsel was cognizant of the warnings associated with paint-ball guns and decided to introduce the gun, despite the risk that the State would exploit the warnings. Trial counsel's decision to introduce the replica paint-ball gun is indicative of the difficult choices trial attorneys face which require them to balance potential risks and benefits. It is not our job to second guess these strategic decisions with the benefit of hindsight. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). We must presume "that counsel is better positioned than the appellate court to judge the pragmatism of the particular case, and that counsel made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Young v. State, 991 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). We further presume that counsel's conduct lies within the "wide range of reasonable representation" and constitutes sound trial strategy. McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We hold that trial counsel's decision to introduce the paint-ball gun into evidence did not render counsel's performance so deficient that he was not functioning as acceptable counsel under the United States and Texas Constitutions.