Carl Stovall v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 17, 2014.
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-12-01696-CR
    No. 05-12-01697-CR
    No. 05-12-01698-CR
    No. 05-12-01701-CR
    CARL STOVALL, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-57483-Q, F11-19054-Q, F12-54176-Q, F12-54177-Q
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis
    Opinion by Justice Lewis
    After Carl Stovall pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, aggravated robbery,
    and two charges of evading arrest, a jury assessed punishment at two years in prison and a
    $5,000 fine for the methamphetamine case; 90 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the
    aggravated robbery case; and ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each of the two evading
    arrest cases. In a single issue, appellant complains he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue
    this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4.
    We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard outlined in
    Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    (1984). See Hernandez v. State 
    726 S.W.2d 53
    , 57 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1986). To prevail, appellant must prove (1) counsel’s performance was deficient in
    that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) counsel’s deficient performance
    prejudiced the defense, resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the
    proceeding. See 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    –88. To establish deficient performance under the
    first prong, a defendant must show that no reasonable trial strategy could justify counsel’s
    conduct. 
    Id. at 689;
    Garcia v. State, 
    57 S.W.3d 436
    , 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the absence
    of evidence of counsel’s reasons for the challenged conduct, we will assume a strategic
    motivation if any can be imagined and find the challenged conduct “deficient only if the conduct
    was so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” Andrews v. State, 
    159 S.W.3d 98
    , 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As for the second prong, appellant must show a
    reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
    would have been different. Thompson v. State, 
    9 S.W.3d 808
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). A
    reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 
    Id. Finally, an
    appellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court’s need to
    consider the other prong. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    –88.
    A finding of ineffective assistance requires counsel’s deficiency be affirmatively
    demonstrated in the record. 
    Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813
    . In most cases, a silent record which
    provides no explanation for counsel’s actions will not overcome the strong presumption of
    reasonable assistance. See Rylander v. State, 
    101 S.W.3d 107
    , 110–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
    We may not reverse for ineffective assistance when counsel’s actions or omissions may have
    been based on tactical decisions, but the record does not explain the reasons for counsel’s
    decisions. Lopez v. State, 
    343 S.W.3d 137
    , 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Because the
    reasonableness of trial counsel’s choices often involve facts that do not appear in the appellate
    record, an application for writ of habeas corpus is the more appropriate vehicle to raise
    –2–
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Mitchell v. State, 
    68 S.W.3d 640
    , 642 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2002).
    In this case, appellant contends he was not fully advised of the charges against him or his
    options for disposing of the case. Appellant claims his counsel failed to file any pretrial motions
    or present any mitigating evidence, including evidence of his “serious drug problem.”
    Initially we note the record shows defense counsel did file several pretrial motions,
    contrary to appellant’s assertions. The record also shows a colloquy between the trial court,
    defense counsel, and appellant where appellant refused to give his defense counsel any names of
    witnesses that could be called to testify at trial.
    As for his remaining claims, appellant filed a motion for new trial but did not raise a
    complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel; therefore, trial counsel has not been given an
    opportunity to explain his actions. Because the record provides no explanation for counsel’s
    actions or inactions, appellant has not met his burden of overcoming the strong presumption of
    reasonable assistance. See 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    –88.
    Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude appellant has shown counsel was
    deficient or that he was prejudiced.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /David Lewis/
    DAVID LEWIS
    JUSTICE
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
    121696F.U05
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    CARL STOVALL, Appellant                                On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-12-01696-CR         V.                          Trial Court Cause No. F10-57483-Q.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                           Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 17th day of April, 2014.
    /David Lewis/
    DAVID LEWIS
    JUSTICE
    –4–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    CARL STOVALL, Appellant                                On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-12-01697-CR         V.                          Trial Court Cause No. F11-19054-Q.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                           Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 17th day of April, 2014.
    /David Lewis/
    DAVID LEWIS
    JUSTICE
    –5–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    CARL STOVALL, Appellant                                On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-12-01698-CR         V.                          Trial Court Cause No. F12-54176-Q.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                           Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 17th day of April, 2014.
    /David Lewis/
    DAVID LEWIS
    JUSTICE
    –6–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    CARL STOVALL, Appellant                                On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
    Court, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-12-01701-CR         V.                          Trial Court Cause No. F12-54177-Q.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                           Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered this 17th day of April, 2014.
    /David Lewis/
    DAVID LEWIS
    JUSTICE
    –7–