Hudson, Anthony v. State ( 2005 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-01164-CR

____________

ANTHONY HUDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 45,471

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Anthony Hudson of harassment by persons in certain correctional facilities. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. '22.11(a)(1).  The trial court found allegations in five enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced Hudson to confinement for thirty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.  After the instant appeal was perfected, appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), concluding there was no arguable error to support an appeal.  Hudson filed a pro se brief in which he complains (1) trial counsel did not inform him that Sergeant Jones, the victim, would be at trial, (2) trial counsel withheld Sergeant Jones= discipline record, the reason Sergeant Jones was fired, and Sergeant JoOnes= reputation of assaults, (3) trial counsel did not notify the trial judge that Hudson=s constitutional rights were ignored, and (4) trial counsel refused to present the grievance Hudson filed on Sergeant Jones before and after the incident. 

Hudson cites no authority and makes no references to the record.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).  Moreover, the record before this court does not corroborate Hudson=s allegations.  AGenerally the record on direct appeal will not be sufficient to show that counsel's representation was so deficient as to meet the first part of the Strickland standard.  The reasonableness of counsel's choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record.  A petition for writ of habeas corpus usually is the appropriate vehicle to investigate ineffective‑assistance claims.@ Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).  The record before this court does not establish trial counsel=s performance was deficient.  See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel.  Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).