Ronald Hobbs v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-95-00692-CR Ronald Hobbs, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 0952805, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING Appellant Ronald Hobbs appeals from his conviction for the offense of sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The jury assessed appellant's punishment at imprisonment for twenty years and a fine of $10,000. Appellant presents two points of error; he asserts that the trial court erred in admitting a rape kit in evidence and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. We will overrule appellant's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant and the victim lived in the same apartment complex in 1990 and 1991. During that time, they had an ongoing sexual relationship. In 1991, the victim moved from the apartment complex to a duplex. She "did not wish to have contact with anyone from [the apartment complex] anymore. . . . When [she] moved to the duplex [she thought she was] moving to a safe place." She retained her same telephone number and appellant called her but she told him she did not want to continue a sexual relationship with him. On November 17, 1994, the victim received a telephone call from appellant; he wanted to renew their friendship. The victim, who was depressed, reluctantly agreed that appellant could come to see her if "there will only be talk." Appellant came to the victim's duplex, and despite her objections, he immediately attempted to force the victim to engage in several sexual activities. Appellant continued his unwanted assault on the victim for thirty minutes to an hour;"it felt like eternity" to the victim. When appellant forced the victim onto her bed, the telephone receiver was knocked out of place and the victim, unbeknownst to appellant, pressed the 911 call button. Lenora Pryor, a City of Austin 911 call taker, received the call from the victim's duplex at about 9:50 p.m. Pryor, when taking the "open line call," thought "it sounded like some type of struggle." The tape recording of the 911 call was played for the jury. The appellate record does not reveal the words or sounds of the call. When appellant saw police officers outside the duplex, he escaped through the back door leaving his vehicle in front of the duplex. Appellant eluded the police at that time but was later arrested. In his first point of error, appellant urges the trial court abused its discretion by admitting in evidence "the 'rape kit' over objections to relevance and unfair prejudice." Toni Lalonde, a registered nurse employed in the St. David's Hospital emergency room, conducted a sexual assault examination of the victim. Lalonde testified that the purpose of the examination was to collect evidence for prosecution and "to make sure that the patient was physically okay." She testified that a sexual assault examination includes taking a brief history from the victim of "what happened to her." Lalonde made a "head to toe" physical assessment of the victim. She collected blood specimens and hair combings from the victim's head and pubic area. She examined the victim's genitalia and collected specimens from the inside of the victim's mouth, vagina, and rectum. Lalonde described for the jury the victim's dress, demeanor, physical condition, and general appearance at the time of the examination. State's Exhibit No. 6 was identified by Lalonde as a sexual assault evidence kit referred to as a "rape kit." Without objection, Lalonde testified: Q. Could you identify for the jury each of the items that are in the rape kit. A. This is an envelope with combings from the hair on her head. Also, the comb is in there. This is hair from her head that we pulled out. These are Q-tips, which are swabs that I collected from around on her breasts. These are -- this is -- I'm not sure how many slides are in here. There's one slide in here with vaginal secretion. This is a swab, a Q-tip swab, from her vagina. This is a comb and combings from her pubic hair. These are pubic hair that we pulled out. This is a swab, a Q-tip from a saliva specimen. And these are three blood tubes from her blood. This is an oral swab from her mouth, from the saliva. And I did not do fingernail clippings. Q. Okay. In your opinion, Ms. Lalonde, are all of these items in the same condition that you saw them on the night that you took all the specimens? A. They appear to be, yes. Other than Lalonde's testimony, there is nothing in the record to show the contents of the rape kit. At the conclusion of Lalonde's testimony, the State offered the rape kit in evidence. Appellant's trial counsel objected on grounds that "any slight relevance [the rape kit] might have is so far overborne by its potential to confuse the issues before the jury and inflame its passions and prejudice that substantially outweighs what ever slight probative effect it might have." The objection was overruled. On appeal, appellant argues in conclusion that "considering that any probative value of the rape kit was merely cumulative to undisputed testimony, any prejudicial nature of the kit outweighed its probative nature, and therefore was improperly admitted." A defendant may not complain on appeal about the admission of evidence when the record shows that the same evidence was admitted without objection. See Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 290-91 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Mutcher v. State, 514 S.W.2d 905, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Roy v. State, 891 S.W.2d 315, 325 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1994, no pet.); Macias v. State, 776 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1989, pet. ref'd). Without objection, Lalonde identified and testified about "each of the items in the rape kit." The admission of the rape kit in evidence gave the jury no more evidence than that of Lalonde's testimony. Therefore, there is no merit to appellant's complaint and we need not make a relevance analysis to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting the rape kit in evidence. Appellant's first point of error is overruled. In his second point of error, appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not move for a continuance to obtain witnesses to rebut the surprise testimony of the State's expert witness. The error claimed in this point occurred during the punishment phase of appellant's trial. Appellant argues that counsel's representation did not meet the Strickland standard for effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). However, the Strickland standard is not the correct standard for the determination of the effectiveness of counsel at the punishment phase of a non-capital trial. The proper standard is that expressed in Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). See Valencia v. State, 946 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Counsel "reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance" is the Duffy standard. See Ex parte Cruz, 739 S.W.2d 53, 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). However, there are at least two petitions for discretionary review now pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals that were granted to decide whether the court should abandon the Duffy standard at the punishment phase of non-capital trials. See Hernandez v. State, 943 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997, pet. granted Sept. 17, 1997); Oliva v. State, 942 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. granted August 27, 1997). Therefore, in this case, we will apply both the Duffy and Strickland standards. To show ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that: (1) trial counsel's performance was deficient, in that counsel made such serious errors that he was not functioning effectively as counsel; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense to such a degree that appellant was deprived of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); 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). Counsel's performance is to be judged by the "totality of representation" provided. At the punishment phase of trial, the State offered the testimony of Vivian Lewis Heiney. Before she testified in the presence of the jury, the trial court conducted a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether her testimony would be admissible. Heiney testified that she was "a registered sex offender treatment provider, and under that registry, I am given the authority to treat the specialization of sex offenders." The State's expressed purpose in offering Heiney's testimony was to prove the appellant's "continuing dangerousness to society and the impossibility of [his] rehabilitation." Appellant claimed surprise and objected to Heiney's proposed testimony unless he could have a continuance "to obtain witnesses to testify on behalf of the defense to [rehabilitation] programs that are available to the defendant . . . witnesses who will testify in detail about the possibility of rehabilitative efforts in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the suitability of this defendant for these programs." The State then proposed offering Heiney's testimony only to show appellant's dangerousness to society. The trial court ruled that the evidence the State proposed offering was admissible "under 37.07, section 3(a)." See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(a) (West Supp. 1998). The trial court ruled that the testimony the State said it would offer was "not unfairly prejudicial and the court doesn't find that it substantially outweighs" its probative value under Rule 403. See Tex. R. Evid. 403. The trial court then advised defense counsel that "based on what the State proffers . . . the defense may or may not be entitled to a recess in time to prepare more witnesses." Heiney then testified in the presence of the jury that Travis County did not conduct a sexual offender treatment program of its own but instead referred such offenders to several privately operated programs such as the one she directed and supervised. Appellant had been referred to Heiney's program for specialized sex offender treatment in April 1991 after he had been convicted of a sex crime and granted probation. Appellant's program attendance was not satisfactory and the "first group of his peers voted him out of the group and he was terminated from that group for failure to participate." Then, appellant was placed with a second group and different therapists. The second group also voted appellant out for failure to participate. A third attempt by Heiney's program ended in failure and appellant's treatment at Heiney's center was eventually terminated. Heiney testified that in her opinion appellant showed no empathy and no remorse for his victims. She testified that she had "a concern that [appellant] is a high risk to hurt another person in a sexual manner." On cross-examination, Heiney conceded that appellant's inability to maintain employment and his father's death were contributing factors to his unsuccessful completion of treatment. To treat appellant successfully, Heiney testified that he "needs a multiple modality of treatment that will address his particular needs, and his particular needs are not simplistic in terms of one specific area. They're diversified and they're multifaceted and each of these should be addressed if possible." After the State rested, the defense presented two character witnesses, rested, and closed without renewing the request for a continuance. Under either the Duffy or Strickland standard, for appellant to prevail on his claim, the record must show that trial counsel's failure to renew his trial motion for a continuance in some way harmed appellant's defense. The usual way for a defendant to show he was harmed in not getting a continuance is by filing a timely motion for new trial supported by an affidavit showing the evidence he would have offered. See Minx v. State, 615 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A defendant cannot gain a reversal of a conviction for not receiving a continuance unless the record shows that the evidence sought to be obtained by delay was material to his case and that he was prejudiced by his inability to produce that evidence. See Leach v. State, 548 S.W.2d 383, 384-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). For that reason, it is required that when complaint is made of the denial of a motion for a continuance to secure evidence, an affidavit or other evidence is presented on a motion for new trial showing the nature and materiality of the missing evidence. See id.; McCloud v. State, 494 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). The record shows that appellant's trial counsel was allowed to withdraw from his representation of appellant well before the time for filing a motion for new trial elapsed. Appellant's newly appointed appellate counsel timely filed a motion for new trial but in that motion did not urge as a ground trial counsel's failure to request a continuance. Even if a continuance had been obtained, the record does not show how it could have benefitted appellant's defense. We hold the record shows appellant received reasonably effective assistance of counsel satisfying the Duffy standard. Also, the record fails to show that trial counsel's performance was deficient or that trial counsel made serious errors that deprived appellant of a fair trial; the Strickland standard was satisfied. Appellant's second point of error is overruled. The judgment is affirmed. Carl E. F. Dally, Justice Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Carl E. F. Dally* Affirmed Filed: June 25, 1998 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 1988). fender treatment program of its own but instead referred such offenders to several privately operated programs such as the one she directed and supervised. Appellant had been referred to Heiney's program for specialized sex offender treatment in April 1991 after he had been convicted of a sex crime and granted probation. Appellant's program attendance was not satisfactory and the "first group of his peers voted him out of the group and he was terminated from that group for failure to participate." Then, appellant was placed with a second group and different therapists. The second group also voted appellant out for failure to participate. A third attempt by Heiney's program ended in failure and appellant's treatment at Heiney's center was eventually terminated. Heiney testified that in her opinion appellant showed no empathy and no remorse for his victims. She testified that she had "a concern that [appellant] is a high risk to hurt another person in a sexual manner." On cross-examination, Heiney conceded that appellant's inability to maintain employment and his father's death were contributing factors to his unsuccessful completion of treatment. To treat appellant successfully, Heiney testified that he "needs a multiple modality of treatment that will address his particular needs, and his particular needs are not simplistic in terms of one specific area. They're diversified and they're multifaceted and each of these should be addressed if possible." After the State rested, the defense presented two character witnesses, rested, and closed without renewing the request for a continuance. Under either the Duffy or Strickland standard, for appellant to prevail on his claim, the record must show that trial counsel's failure to renew his trial motion for a continuance in some way harmed appellant's defense. The usual way for a defendant to show