Shockley, John David ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                         WR-49,642-02
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    Transmitted 10/28/2015 3:43:46 PM
    Accepted 10/28/2015 3:54:30 PM
    WR-49,642-02                                           ABEL ACOSTA
    CLERK
    W11-51734-T(A)
    RECEIVED
    EX PARTE                                        §             IN THE COURT
    COURT      OF APPEALS
    OF CRIMINAL
    §                         10/28/2015
    ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
    §             CRIMINAL APPEALS
    §
    JOHN SHOCKLEY                                   §             OF TEXAS
    OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER ON
    SHOCKLEY’S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    In Shockley’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, he argued that his
    counsel was ineffective in advising him not to testify at the guilt phase of his trial for
    aggravated robbery because he was the only person who could have provided evidence
    that the “gun” used in the robbery was in fact a toy. See TEX. PEN. CODE § 29.03 (a
    person commits the offense of aggravated robbery if, among other alternatives, he
    commits robbery and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon). The trial court agreed that
    counsel’s performance was deficient. The court determined that Shockley was not
    prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient representation, though, because, in light of
    Shockley’s criminal history, he was subject to the same sentencing range regardless
    of whether he was convicted of aggravated robbery or robbery. And because the court
    did hear the toy-gun evidence, albeit at punishment, and ostensibly factored it into
    its sentencing decision, the court reasoned counsel’s failure made no difference.
    The court was wrong. Even if Shockley’s sentence would have been the same
    number of years, had the evidence been admitted at the guilt phase of trial, and
    Shockley been convicted only of robbery, he would be eligible for parole when his
    actual calendar time served plus good conduct time equals one-fourth of the sentence
    1
    imposed. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 508.145(f). Because the evidence was only presented
    at punishment, however, Shockley is not eligible for release on parole until his actual
    calendar time served, without consideration of good conduct time, equals one-half of
    the sentence. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 508.145(d)(1); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12
    §3g(a)(1)(F). Thus, in this instance, where Shockley was sentenced to 35 years’
    imprisonment, counsel’s deficient performance resulted in a delay in parole eligibility
    of 8.75 years. Certainly, this was prejudicial. See, e.g., Ex parte Scott, 
    581 S.W.2d 181
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (where counsel’s failure raised the possible punishment from
    twelve years to life imprisonment, counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial);
    cf. Ex Parte Moussazadeh, 
    361 S.W.3d 684
    , 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (counsel’s
    failure to inform defendant that he would not be eligible for parole until one-half of
    his sentence was served, rather than one-fourth, was deficient and prejudicial).
    Accordingly, Shockley objects to the district court’s order concluding otherwise.
    For these reasons, and all those urged in Shockley’s original memorandum in
    support of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, Shockley respectfully requests
    this Court to reject the district court’s recommendation, and to find that that his
    conviction for aggravated robbery illegally confines and restrains him of his liberty.
    His conviction was had only upon an involuntary plea and the ineffective assistance
    of his counsel. This Court should thus issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus, set aside his
    conviction, and remand the case for a new trial. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington,
    
    466 U.S. 668
    , 694, (1984).
    Respectfully submitted,
    2
    /s/ Bruce Anton
    BRUCE ANTON
    Bar Card No. 01274700
    ba@sualaw.com
    /s/ Brett Ordiway
    BRETT ORDIWAY
    State Bar No. 24079086
    bordiway@sualaw.com
    SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
    2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250
    Dallas, Texas 75201
    (214)-468-8100 (office)
    (214)-468-8104 (fax)
    Counsel for Applicant
    Certificate of Service
    I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
    Objections to the Trial Court’s Order on Shockley’s Application for a Writ of Habeas
    Corpus was mailed to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office and the 283rd
    Judicial District Court of Dallas County on October 28, 2015.
    /s/ Bruce Anton
    Bruce Anton
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-49,642-02

Filed Date: 10/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/30/2016