NUMBER 13-12-00248-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RICARDO ZAMORA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant, Ricardo Zamora, was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 (West Supp. 2011). Subsequently, Zamora was
sentenced to fifty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division. By one issue, Zamora argues that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to file pre-trial motions. We
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2011, Zamora was arrested and accused of engaging in sexual
contact with two children younger than seventeen years of age. Id. Later, Zamora
was indicted on September 1, 2011, and reindicted on January 27 , 2012 for continuous
sexual abuse of a child.
Prior to Zamora’s trial, Zamora’s trial counsel, who is also his appellate counsel,
filed: (1) a motion for continuance, (2) an affidavit on the defendant’s comprehension of
the English language, and (3) an application for community supervision. No other
motions were filed.1
On March 21, 2012, a jury convicted Zamora for the offense of continuous sexual
abuse of a child. See Id. The trial court sentenced Zamora to fifty years’ confinement.
This appeal followed.
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is evaluated under a two-part test
derived from the Supreme Court decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 689
(1984). The Strickland test requires that Zamora show that his counsel‘s performance
was deficient and fell below the objective standard of reasonableness. Thompson v.
State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In establishing the validity of
Zamora’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “any judicial review must be highly
deferential to trial counsel and avoid the deleterious effect of hindsight.” Id. Should
1
Zamora’s previous trial counsel filed a motion to reduce bond.
2
Zamora prove his counsel was deficient, he must then show that, but for counsel’s
errors, the outcome of his case may have been different Rodriguez v. State, 899 S.W.2d
658, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
The burden is on Zamora to prove ineffective assistance of counsel by a
preponderance of evidence. See Rodriguez, 899 S.W.2d at 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
(citing Moore v. State, 694 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex. Crim App. 1985)). Additionally the
fact that another attorney might have pursued a different course of action or tried the
case differently will not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Owens v.
State, 916 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
III. ANALYSIS
By his sole issue, Zamora asserts that he was provided with ineffective assistance
of counsel because Zamora’s counsel did not file pre-trial motions. Nonetheless, we
ultimately conclude that Zamora cannot show prejudice under Strickland. First the
defense counsel’s mere failure to submit an appropriate pre-trial motion does not on its
face prejudice the defendant and Zamora does not explain how the failure to file certain
pre-trial motions affected the outcome in this case. Madden, 911 S.W.2d at 241 (citing
Martinez v. State, 824 S.W. 2d 688, 690 (Tex. Crim. App 1992)). In fact, because the
trial judge has discretion in granting and denying these motions, Zamora would be
hard-pressed to prove that the failure to file pre-trial motions would have affected the
outcome of his case, Zamora failed to state with specificity which pre-trial motions would
have impacted his case. Therefore we cannot make a determination as to how the
motions may have made a difference, and See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812. Zamora
has failed to show how his counsel’s performance was deficient and fell below the
3
objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Moreover,
Zamora has failed to show that the outcome of his case would have been different but for
the deficient performance. See Id. Accordingly, we overrule Zamora’s sole issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
________________________
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed the
27th day of June, 2013.
4