Mario Hernandez Caballero v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 4, 2000
• Docket: 03-99-00413-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00413-CR

Mario Hernandez Caballero, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR98-271, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Mario Hernandez Caballero was convicted in a jury trial on Count I of attempted sexual assault, on Count II of assault against a family member enhanced by two prior convictions, and on Count III of the violation of a protective order enhanced by committing an assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01, 22.011; 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2); 25.07(a)(g) (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). The trial court assessed appellant's punishment for Count I at imprisonment for ten years and a fine of $5,000, for Count II at confinement in a state jail facility and a fine of $5,000, and for Count III at imprisonment for ten years and a fine of $5,000.

In his sole point of error, appellant asserts that his appointed "defense counsel's prior prosecution of appellant presented a conflict of interest in violation of U.S. Const. Amend. VI, Texas Const. Art. I, sec. 10, and the Code of Criminal Proc. § 2.08, thereby denying appellant effective assistance of counsel." We will affirm the judgment.

After trial, appointed trial counsel was replaced by retained counsel, who filed a motion for new trial. The motion alleged that trial counsel had a conflict of interest, and that counsel failed to advise appellant of this conflict. Therefore, appellant insists his rights were severely prejudiced requiring the trial court to grant a new trial. Trial counsel and appellant testified on the motion for new trial.

To enhance appellant's punishment in Count II, it was alleged that appellant was previously convicted of an assault in Comal County Court at Law, in Cause Number 94CR370. On the hearing of the motion for new trial, defense counsel was shown to have been employed previously as an assistant county attorney for Comal County. While an assistant county attorney, he signed, presented, and filed the information charging appellant with the offense of which he was convicted in Cause Number 94CR370. However, another assistant county attorney represented the State when appellant was prosecuted and convicted in Cause Number 94CR370.

Appellant argues that because his appointed trial counsel had represented the State in filing the information in Cause Number 94CR370, counsel's representation in this case "clearly amounted to an actual conflict of interest." Appellant complains this conflict was especially egregious because counsel did not advise him of the conflict.

The facts in this case are very similar to those in Hernandez v. Johnson, 108 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 1997), in which the same issues were presented. Hernandez received the death penalty for capital murder. See id. at 558-60. Nine years prior to the capital murder trial, one of Hernandez's appointed attorneys, Charles Borchers had been the elected District Attorney in Webb County. See id. While Borchers was the district attorney, Hernandez was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and of murder. See id. In connection with the murder charge, Borchers requested a psychiatric evaluation of Hernandez. See id. Borchers signed a motion to dismiss a related indictment after Hernandez pled guilty to aggravated assault and Borchers "probably approved" the plea bargain. See id. Borchers signed two applications for subpoenas and moved to dismiss related charges after appellant pled guilty. See id. Hernandez's prior convictions were admitted in evidence in his capital murder trial. Id.

In the federal habeas corpus proceeding, Hernandez contended that Borchers's service as district attorney during the time he was convicted of the prior offenses created an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting Borchers performance under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.08. See Hernandez, 108 F.3d at 558-60. The Fifth Circuit Court found that Borchers's involvement was not personal or substantial enough to give rise to an actual conflict under Cuyler. See id. In these circumstances, where Borchers was "only tenuously and nominally connected to the prior cases against Hernandez" it could not be said he "actively" represented conflicting interests as contemplated by Cuyler. See id.

Citing Cuyler, appellant insists that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. Appellant's reliance on Cuyler is misplaced. Cuyler does not apply to the type of conflict appellant alleges occurred here. Cuyler's application is limited to conflicts presented by counsel's representation of multiple co-defendants or the representation of both a defendant and witnesses or other interested parties. See Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995). In the type of conflict of interest alleged by appellant, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), rather than Cuyler furnishes the standard for determining effectiveness of counsel. See Monreal v. State, 947 S.W.2d 559, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Beets, 65 F.3d at 1265-68.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, appellant bears the burden of proving (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced his trial. To prove deficiency, appellant must demonstrate that counsel's performance deviated from "prevailing professional norms." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984); McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 842-43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). To prove prejudice, appellant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different had counsel not performed deficiently. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693; McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d at 842-43.

Cardenas v. State, No. 73,107, slip op. at 10 (Tex. Crim. App. April 26, 2000); see also Shaw v. State, 874 S.W.2d 115, 118 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); O'Hara v. State, 837 S.W.2d 139, 143 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet. ref'd).

In Count II, only one prior conviction was necessary to enhance punishment. The State alleged and proved two prior convictions for enhancement. Only one of the alleged prior convictions was subject to the alleged conflict of interest. In these circumstances, appellant has failed to show that the alleged conflict of interest prejudiced his trial to the extent that it undermined confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.

In his motion for new trial and on the hearing of the motion, appellant did not seriously fault trial counsel's representation except for the alleged conflict of interest. However, on appeal appellant lists numerous complaints alleging counsel was ineffective. These include counsel's allegations of failure to (1) file a motion in limine, "a fundamental trial tactic," (2) seriously attempt to keep the enhancement convictions from being admitted in evidence, and (3) object during voir dire "to the State's discussion of appellant's prior family violence convictions used for enhancement purposes"; in addition, appellant claims (4) counsel's "decision to allow appellant to testify is questionable," (5) counsel's "cross-examination appeared half-hearted at best," (6) trial counsel failed to call unbiased witnesses in support of appellant, (7) counsel called only three witnesses to testify appellant was eligible for probation and needed counseling, and (8) counsel called no witnesses to testify that appellant was employed. These alleged deficiencies of trial counsel's representation raised on appeal after the hearing of the motion for new trial are not sufficiently supported by the record to show counsel's alleged deficiencies deviated from the "prevailing professional norms." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693; see Cardenas, No. 73,107, slip op. at 10; McFarland, 845 S.W.2d at 842-43. The alleged constitutional and statutory violations are without merit. "In most instances, the record on direct appeal is inadequate to develop an ineffective assistance claim." Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507, 512-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). On the record before us, appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that trial counsel was acting effectively at all times. See Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Gravis v. State, 982 S.W.2d 933, 937 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). Appellant's point of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Carl E. F. Dally, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Jones and Dally^*

Affirmed

Filed: May 4, 2000

Do Not Publish

^* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).

McFarland v. State

, 845 S.W.2d at 842-43.

Cardenas v. State, No. 73,107, slip op. at 10 (Tex. Crim. App. April 26, 2000); see also Shaw v. State, 874 S.W.2d 115, 118 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); O'Hara v. State, 837 S.W.2d 139, 143 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, pet. ref'd).

In Count II, only one prior conviction was necessary to enhance punishment. The State alleged and proved two prior convictions for enhancement. Only one of the alleged prior convictions was subject to the alleged conflict of interest. In these circumstances, appellant has failed to show that the alleged conflict of interest prejudiced his trial to the extent that it undermined confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.

In his motion for new trial and on the hearing of the motion, appellant did not seriously fault trial counsel's representation except for the alleged conflict of interest. However, on appeal appellant lists numerous complaints alleging counsel was ineffective. These include counsel's allegations of failure to (1) file a motion in limine, "a fundamental trial tactic," (2) seriously attempt to keep the enhancement convictions from being admitted in evidence, and (3) object during voir dire "to the State's discussion of appellant