|
|
|
|
Opinion filed August 14, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00340-CR
__________
JILLANNA BRITT WELCH, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR29627
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from an order adjudicating guilt. Jillanna Britt Welch originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of theft. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, and assessed a $750 fine. After a hearing on the State=s second amended motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, revoked her community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for two years in a state jail facility. We affirm.
Issue on Appeal
In her sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that her trial counsel afforded her ineffective assistance of counsel during the adjudication proceedings. Specifically, appellant contends that trial counsel failed to timely inform her of a plea offer and failed to offer Ameaningful advice on whether to accept the plea [offer].@
Standard of Review
In order to determine whether appellant=s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial, we must first determine whether appellant has shown that counsel=s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, then determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for counsel=s errors. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We must indulge a strong presumption that counsel=s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Analysis
Appellant=s position is predicated on the assumption that the State made a plea offer before the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, but nothing in the record supports this: the clerk=s record does not contain a plea offer, the record from the hearing is silent, and no testimony and no documentation was offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the record before this court reflects that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel cross-examined the State=s only witness, appellant=s community supervision officer, and elicited testimony from appellant concerning her explanations for the alleged violations. Appellant has neither overcome the presumption in Bone, 77 S.W.3d 828, nor established ineffective assistance under the test set forth in Wiggins, 539 U.S. 510; Strickland, 466 U.S. 668; Andrews, 159 S.W.3d 98; and Hernandez, 988 S.W.2d 770. The sole issue is overruled.
Holding
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
August 14, 2008 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.