COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-05-411-CR
ANTHONY MANNING APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
------------
I. Introduction
Anthony Manning appeals his conviction, twenty-five-year sentence, and $100 fine for possession of 400 or more grams of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. In his sole point, appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase at trial. We affirm.
II. Background Facts
On May 23, 2005, appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of 400 or more grams of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. On September 22, 2005, appellant entered a plea in bar, admitting his guilt in two other cases in which he was charged with possession of a controlled substance under one gram. That same day, the trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $100 fine.
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel=s representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel=s deficiency, the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); 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); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). AAny 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).
Here, appellant has failed to provide us with a reporter=s record for review. Appellant and his attorney signed the written plea admonishments which contained a waiver of Athe attendance and record of a court reporter under Rule 13.1, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.@ Without evidence to the contrary, we presume appellant received reasonably professional assistance. See Salinas, 163 S.W.3d at 740. Because appellant failed to provide evidence tending to show that his attorney=s representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms, we hold that appellant has not carried his burden of proof to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. Therefore, we overrule appellant=s sole point.
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled appellant=s sole point, we affirm the trial court=s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL F: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 13, 2006
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.