AFFIRM; Opinion Filed April 16, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-00558-CR
BRADLEY DEAN HENSLEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 059872
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Moseley
Bradley Dean Hensley pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. Asserting a single issue on appeal, Hensley argues he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The background and facts of the case are
well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are
settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
After entering Hensley’s guilty plea, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and
placed Hensley on community supervision. Approximately a year later, the State filed a motion
to proceed with an adjudication of guilt alleging Hensley violated the terms of his community
supervision. The State later amended its motion to allege Hensley violated additional terms of
his community supervision. Hensley entered an open plea of true to the allegations in the State’s
motion. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudicated Hensley guilty on his
original plea and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement. Hensley filed a motion for new
trial asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during the adjudication process. Following a
hearing, the trial court denied Hensley’s motion. Hensley appealed.
Hensley argues he receive ineffective assistance of counsel at his punishment hearing
because his attorney failed to: (1) have Hensley examined by a psychiatrist; (2) enroll Hensley in
a rehabilitation program; (3) seek discovery from the State; (4) engage the State to negotiate an
agreed sentence; (5) call two witnesses whose testimony would have supported Hensley; and (6)
investigate whether an adverse witness would testify favorably for Hensley before calling the
witness.
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion,
“reversing only if the trial judge’s opinion was clearly erroneous and arbitrary.” See Riley v.
State, 378 S.W.3d 453, 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion “if no
reasonable view of the record could support the trial court’s ruling.”
To successfully assert an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, an appellant must
show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2)
the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. See Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). Our review
of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and we assume counsel’s conduct fell within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See id. An ineffective assistance claim must
be “firmly founded in the record,” and the record must “affirmatively demonstrate” the claim has
merit. Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Even if we were to assume Hensley made a sufficient showing that his counsel’s
representation was deficient, Hensley failed to show any prejudice to his defense. Hensley’s
argument on appeal is that “[h]ad [counsel] acted in the role of competent counsel it is likely Mr.
Hensley would have received a lesser sentence than what was received because the [c]ourt was
not presented with facts that were favorable to Mr. Hensley.” There are no facts in the record to
support this argument. See id. Thus, Hensley failed to show a reasonable probability that but for
counsel’s alleged errors the result would have been different. See Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 101.
Because Hensley failed to meet his burden, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Hensley’s motion for new trial. We overrule Hensley’s sole issue on
appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
DO NOT PUBLISH JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
120558F.U05
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BRADLEY DEAN HENSLEY, Appellant On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District
Court, Grayson County, Texas
No. 05-12-00558-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 059872-15.
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O'Neill and Lewis participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 16th day of April, 2013.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE