Michael Mandel Christian v. State ( 2012 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
_________________________
No. 06-11-00248-CR
______________________________
MICHAEL MANDEL CHRISTIAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23277
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Mandel Christian argues—on appeal from a judgment adjudicating his guilt for
aggravated assault and sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment—that his trial counsel was
ineffective because he recommended that Christian plead guilty in the underlying action from
which he was placed on deferred adjudication. Because ineffective assistance of counsel during
the original proceeding cannot now be raised on appeal from Christian’s adjudication of guilt, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues
relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication is first
imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).1 Christian’s argument is
therefore not cognizable in this appeal from the final adjudication of guilt.
Even if it were reviewable, Christian runs headlong into the rigorous requirements of
establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. He would be required to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence (1) that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984); Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1999). To meet this burden, Christian would be required to prove that the attorney’s
representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for the attorney’s deficiency, the result of the trial would have
1
An exception exists in the case of a void judgment, but there is no suggestion that this exception could apply to this
case. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
2
been different. Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Tong v. State,
25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Where an appellate record is silent as to why trial counsel failed to take certain actions,
the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that trial counsel’s decision was in some way
reasonable. See Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In this case, there
is no record at any level to indicate why counsel chose to take or declined to take any of these
actions.
We affirm the judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: September 4, 2012
Date Decided: September 7, 2012
Do Not Publish
3