Shannon Rogers v. State ( 2001 )

NUMBER 13-00-130-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

SHANNON ROGERS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Shannon Rogers, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant's community supervision. After hearing the motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and ordered that appellant serve his original sentence of ten years imprisonment. By a single issue, appellant contends his counsel at the revocation hearing was ineffective because he did not have appellant evaluated by a mental health professional for competency and did not ask the trial court to (1) order a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and (2) continue appellant on community supervision.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are analyzed under the rule set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by the court of criminal appeals in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The Strickland standard applies to ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of the proceedings. Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

We find no evidence in the record which establishes that appellant's counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The record shows: (1) appellant pleaded true to the allegations he violated the conditions of his community supervision, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21 (Vernon Supp. 2001); (2) appellant waived his right to have a PSI report prepared and considered by the court, see Guzman v. State, 923 S.W.2d 792, 798 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.); (3) the evidence does not raise a bona fide doubt as to appellant's competency, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02, § 1A (Vernon Supp. 2001) and Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); and (4) counsel brought forth evidence, through the testimony of witnesses, that appellant would benefit from being continued on community supervision.

Even though appellant's community supervision was revoked, we conclude counsel's representation was effective and was a bona fide attempt to assist appellant. We overrule appellant's sole issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

15th day of February, 2001.