Thompson v. The State of Texas
9 S.W.3d 808 (1999)
Rule of Law:
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal will generally fail if the record is silent as to why trial counsel failed to act, as the defendant cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
Facts:
- Stacy Pierre and his girlfriend, Amanda Williams, encountered a group including Marcus Bernard Thompson engaged in a dice game.
- Pierre joined the game, which became agitated, and he signaled to his friend, Michael Wagner, to wait for him in Pierre's car with Williams.
- The game turned into a physical confrontation during which an assailant struck Pierre in the head.
- Pierre managed to get to his car, and Wagner, who was in the front passenger seat, briefly exited to allow Pierre to climb into the back seat.
- After Wagner returned to his seat, a bullet was fired through the windshield, striking and killing him.
- At trial, Pierre was the only witness who testified that it was Thompson who stood in front of the car and fired the fatal shot.
- Physical evidence at the scene was scarce and did not directly implicate Thompson; some of it, such as a spent .25 caliber casing found inside Pierre's car, tended to impeach parts of Pierre's testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcus Bernard Thompson was charged with murder, and a jury in a Harris County trial court found him guilty.
- Thompson appealed his conviction to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
- The Court of Appeals agreed with Thompson, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The State, as petitioner, filed a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest criminal court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
On direct appeal, does a silent record regarding trial counsel's strategy for failing to object to inadmissible hearsay defeat a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, J.
Yes. On direct appeal, a silent record regarding trial counsel's strategy generally defeats a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonable. The court applies the two-pronged test from Strickland v. Washington, requiring a defendant to show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The majority emphasizes that there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. When a claim of ineffectiveness is based on a failure to act, the record on direct appeal is typically undeveloped and does not explain counsel's motivations. Without such an explanation, an appellate court cannot determine whether the omission was a strategic choice or negligent error, and therefore cannot conclude that counsel's performance was deficient. The court held that the proper vehicle for such claims is typically a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, where an evidentiary hearing can be held to develop a record and obtain testimony from trial counsel about their strategy.
Dissenting - Meyers, J.
No. A silent record does not automatically defeat an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal if the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that no plausible trial strategy could justify counsel's error. The dissent argues that the Strickland test is objective, focusing on whether counsel's actions were within the range of professional competence, not on counsel's subjective motivations. In this case, defense counsel objected to the inadmissible hearsay twice successfully, demonstrating he knew the evidence was damaging and inadmissible. His subsequent failure to object when the prosecutor finally elicited the testimony through artful questioning cannot be explained by any conceivable trial strategy. Because the error was so egregious and prejudicial in a case resting on a single eyewitness, the appellate court had a sufficient record to find counsel's performance deficient, even without direct testimony about his thought process.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the procedural bar for bringing ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims on direct appeal in Texas. It solidifies the principle that appellate courts must be highly deferential to trial counsel and will not find ineffective assistance based on a silent record, thereby channeling most IAC claims into post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. This approach ensures that courts do not second-guess trial strategy without a full evidentiary record, but it also creates a substantial hurdle for defendants, who must initiate a separate, often more complex, legal action to develop the evidence needed to prove their claim.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Thompson v. The State of Texas (1999)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"