Jason Eureste v. State ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-00-00569-CR
    Jason Eureste, Appellant
    v.
    The State of Texas, Appellee
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CONCHO COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. 1326-A, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
    Appellant Jason Eureste was jointly tried on two indictments, one accusing him of
    the sexual assault of a fourteen-year-old girl and the other accusing him of the aggravated sexual
    assault of an eleven-year-old girl.        See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2)(A) &
    22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (2)(B) (West Supp. 2001). A jury found him not guilty of the first offense but
    guilty of the second, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years and a $10,000 fine. On
    the jury’s recommendation, imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on
    community supervision.
    Appellant now contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance. To
    prevail on this claim, appellant must show that counsel made such serious errors that he was not
    functioning effectively as counsel and that these errors prejudiced appellant’s defense to such a degree
    that he was deprived of a fair trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 (1984);
    Hernandez v. State, 
    988 S.W.2d 770
    , 771-72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Hernandez v. State, 
    726 S.W.2d 53
    , 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); and see Moore v. State, 
    694 S.W.2d 528
    , 531 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1985); O'Hara v. State, 
    837 S.W.2d 139
    , 143 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). Appellant
    filed a motion for new trial, but ineffectiveness of counsel was not asserted.
    Appellant contends trial counsel was ineffective because he did not call certain
    witnesses: Catherine Maldonado, a child protective services worker who interviewed the younger
    complainant; an unnamed doctor who examined the complainant following her outcry; and three
    named individuals who were present at the house when the alleged assault took place. The
    complainant’s written statement to Maldonado was introduced in evidence by the defense and used
    to impeach the complainant’s trial testimony. There is no showing that Maldonado’s own testimony
    would have added anything of benefit to the defense. Similarly, there is no evidence that the other
    uncalled witnesses were willing to testify, or would have offered any beneficial testimony.
    Appellant further argues that counsel was ineffective because he did not properly
    develop a misidentification defense. He notes that counsel “cross examined both of the alleged
    victims on their knowledge of and relationship with a man named George Anzuldua, insinuating that
    Anzuldua was the actor and that the Defendant had been misidentified. However, at no time did
    counsel subpoena Mr. Anzuldua, or set forth a direct allegation that Mr. Anzuldua was the guilty
    party.” Anzuldua was shown to be the former boyfriend of the older complainant. Appellant testified
    at trial that Anzuldua was present at the time and place of the alleged assaults, but neither
    complainant corroborated this. There is no evidence that Anzuldua would have testified that he had
    sexual intercourse with the complainants. It would have been improper for the defense to call
    2
    Anzuldua for the purpose of having him invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury, as
    appellant suggests in his brief. See Whitmore v. State, 
    570 S.W.2d 889
    , 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
    In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance, we must indulge a strong presumption
    that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Jackson
    v. State, 
    877 S.W.2d 768
    , 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). In this case, the effectiveness of counsel is
    not merely presumed, but is manifested by the results of the trial. Appellant has not met his burden
    of proving that counsel’s representation was constitutionally inadequate.
    Points of error one and two are overruled and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
    __________________________________________
    Lee Yeakel, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson
    Affirmed
    Filed: June 7, 2001
    Do Not Publish
    3