eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2002-04

Larue Anthony Chargois v. State of Texas ( 2002 )


Menu:

  •     

    In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-01-184 CR

    ____________________



    LARUE ANTHONY CHARGOIS, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the 260th District Court

    Orange County, Texas

    Trial Cause No. D 010018-R



    OPINION  

    Larue Anthony Chargois pleaded guilty to burglary, pleaded "true" to sequential felony conviction allegations, and received from the jury a sentence of twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The sole point of error raised on appeal contends Chargois received ineffective assistance of counsel in the punishment phase of the trial.   

    To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the appellant must establish that (1) counsel's performance fell below the standards of reasonable competency, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). "Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness." McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). (1)

    Chargois did not raise this Sixth Amendment issue in the trial court. Therefore, we do not have the benefit of a hearing in which counsel was called upon to explain her trial strategy and to detail her preparation for trial. Chargois argues that counsel should have obtained an expert to provide mitigation testimony about the defendant's alcohol problems. From the record before us, we do not know the degree of preparation and investigation trial counsel undertook in this case. The appellant merely speculates that an expert on alcoholism could have been extremely persuasive, without establishing what expert testimony would have been provided in mitigation of punishment and how that testimony would have related to the issues relevant to punishment.

    We hold that the appellant failed to meet either prong of the Strickland standard. Accordingly, we overrule the point of error and affirm the judgment.

    AFFIRMED.





    PER CURIAM





    Submitted on April 15, 2002

    Opinion Delivered April 24, 2002

    Do Not Publish



    Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

    1. Because of the difficulty inherent in meeting this standard on appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable through an application for writ of habeas corpus, even if it was raised and rejected on direct appeal.

    See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).