Myre v. State

GARY MYRE, Appellant

v.THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-12-00689-CR

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Dated: July 18, 2013

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed July 18, 2013.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 30519CC

OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant Gary Myre was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced to eighty years in prison. In three issues, he argues that the indictment is void because the State impermissibly used the same prior conviction twice, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the eighty year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

DISCUSSION

Indictment

In his first issue, appellant complains that the indictment improperly alleged a single prior conviction twice, thereby rendering the indictment "void," and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the offense. Appellant was indicted for driving while intoxicated, enhanced to a third degree felony under section 49.09(b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODEANN. § 49.09(b)(2). The indictment alleged two prior Dallas County misdemeanor DWI convictions: MB-02-03369 and MA0542259-K. Appellant's specific complaint is that the MB-02-03369 conviction was used as an enhancement paragraph in the MA0542259-K information and conviction. In addition, having been used to enhance MA0542259-K, cause MB-02-03369 is alleged in the present indictment as a separate prior misdemeanor conviction even though it was, according to appellant, "part and parcel" of the MA0542259-K conviction.

But appellant never raised this particular complaint at trial, and he stipulated to the commission of the two misdemeanor convictions in the "Stipulation and Judicial Confession of Prior Convictions" that was filed in this case. The stipulation states that appellant stipulates and judicially confesses he was convicted of two prior offenses "related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated," MB-02-03369 and MA0542259-K. It is signed by counsel for the State, defense counsel, and appellant. As this Court has explained,

A party may stipulate to any fact or to any element of an offense. See Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). When a criminal defendant does so, the stipulation is a "kind of a judicial admission" and he will not be heard to question the stipulated fact on appeal. Id. In Smith v. State, 158 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), for example, the defendant stipulated to two prior convictions that were the jurisdictional predicate for a felony DWI allegation. Id. One of those convictions was too remote in time to be used for enhancement purposes, and the evidence of jurisdiction would have been insufficient without it. See id. at 464. Affirming the conviction, the court of criminal appeals noted that the timing of the prior convictions was not an element of the offense and that the defendant's stipulation to the prior convictions meant he lost the ability to complain about the remoteness of the prior conviction. Id. at 465. The court added in a footnote that "stipulating to the priors to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence arguably rises to the level of estoppel, when it comes to challenging the legitimacy of using those priors." Id. at 465 n.14 (citations omitted).

Rimes v. State, No. 05-08-01543-CR, 2009 WL 3298181 *4 (Tex. App—Dallas Oct. 15, 2009, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (footnote omitted). Because appellant failed to make this substantive objection to the indictment prior to trial, he failed to preserve the issue for our review. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(b). "[I]ndictments charging a person withcommitting an offense, once presented, invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court and jurisdiction is no longer contingent on whether the indictment contains defects of form or substance." Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We overrule appellant's first issue.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In his second issue, appellant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) did not file a motion to suppress the testimony of the "retrograde extrapolation" expert, Genevieve Medina; (2) did not object to a witness's non-responsive answer; and (3) filed no motion to challenge the admissibility of the blood draw.

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that (1) trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, based on prevailing professional norms; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for trial counsel's deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-92 (1984). Appellant bears the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Review of counsel's representation is highly deferential, and we indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representation. See Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59, 62-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A reviewing court will rarely be in a position on direct appeal to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective assistance claim. Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740; Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). To overcome the presumption of reasonable professional assistance, "any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness." Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740 (quoting Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813). It is notappropriate for an appellate court to simply infer ineffective assistance based upon unclear portions of the record. Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 432 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

With these principles in mind, we first turn to appellant's argument that trial counsel should have moved to suppress Medina's testimony regarding "retrograde extrapolation" of the blood alcohol test results. "Retrograde extrapolation is the computation back in time of the blood-alcohol level—that is, the estimation of the level at the time of driving based on a test result from some later time." Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902, 908-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). During her trial testimony, Medina testified briefly regarding retrograde extrapolation of blood alcohol test results and answered several hypothetical questions posed by the State. The record shows that she did not attempt to assign a particular blood alcohol level using retrograde extrapolation, and that she only testified hypothetically to explain the body's absorption of alcohol and to provide possible alternative values that might have been found when appellant's blood was drawn one hour after his arrest. We have previously found similar testimony to be admissible. See Sutton v. State, No. 05-10-00827-CR, 2011 WL 3528259, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 12, 2011, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication); Garner v. State, No. 05-10-00195-CR, 2011 3278533, at *5 (Tex. App—Dallas, Aug. 2, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Counsel is not required to file futile motions. Diaz v. State, 380 S.W.3d 309, 312 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref'd). Nor is counsel's failure to file a pretrial motion categorically deemed ineffective assistance. Id.

Turning to appellant's second argument, his complaint is that defense counsel permitted impermissible hearsay that denied the appellant his right to confrontation. The relevant portion of the record concerns testimony from a hospital security officer, Moesha Asher, that the hospital's nurse coordinator, Beatrice Gilabola, "asked [appellant] if he was intoxicated because she thought he was" intoxicated, and appellant "said that he wasn't." There was no objection tothis testimony. As an initial matter, however, we note that the failure to object to inadmissible evidence does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Castoreno v. State, 932 S.W.2d 597, 603 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, pet. ref'd). Moreover, isolated failures to object generally do not constitute error in light of the sufficiency of the overall representation. Johnson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). It is possible that counsel's failure to object was the result of trial strategy. See, e.g., Bollinger v. State, 224 S.W.3d 768, 781 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, pet. ref'd) ("Counsel can be concerned that too many objections will alienate a jury or that an objection might draw unwanted attention to a particular issue."); Young v. State, 10 S.W.3d 705, 713 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd) (not deficient performance when defense attorney failed to object because counsel may have reasonably decided not to do so to avoid drawing more attention to the matter); Castoreno, 932 S.W.2d at 603 ("It is entirely possible that counsel made a conscious decision not to object to the use of the police report, as an objection would have drawn attention to relatively harmless evidence."); Henderson v. State, 704 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd) ("Not objecting can be a trial strategy.").

Regarding appellant's third contention, he faults trial counsel for failing to file a motion challenging the admissibility of the blood draw based on the fact that appellant did not sign the written consent form and testimony from appellant that allegedly raised an issue regarding "the unsanitary conditions of the blood draw." Specifically, appellant points to his testimony at trial that the hospital where the blood was drawn "wasn't the cleanest," and additional testimony from appellant that the room where the blood was drawn was "about 75 to 70 percent clean." Although ap...