Trafton Rodgers v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-16-00222-CR
No. 07-16-00223-CR
________________________
TRAFTON RODGERS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 140th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-409,230 (Counts I & II)
Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding
February 13, 2019
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before this court is an extensive thirty-seven page letter from Appellant,
Trafton Rodgers, complaining of matters he contends this court was “not privy to” when
we affirmed his convictions on two counts of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly
weapon.1 See Rodgers v. State, Nos. 07-16-00222-CR, 07-16-00223-CR, 2018 Tex.
App. LEXIS 10105 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 7, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Significant portions of that letter consist of “parts of [a]
transcript not presented to the Seventh Court of Appeals” which Appellant contends
support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—an issue raised on direct appeal.
In the interest of justice, we liberally construe Appellant’s filing to be a motion for rehearing
filed pursuant to Rule 49.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and remaining
convinced that our original disposition was correct, we deny that motion with these
additional comments.
The relationship between Appellant and the victims of the offenses for which he
was convicted has a long and strained history, as more fully set forth in our original
opinion. Appellant contends his counsel was ineffective in conveying his explanation of
the events leading to his convictions as a circumstance of self-defense and/or defense of
a third party. While we considered and rejected that claim on direct appeal, Appellant
now contends our understanding of the issue was impaired by the lack of certain
information relevant to that claim. By his letter-motion, he seeks to provide us that
information. Due process and the rules of appellate procedure mandate that we not
consider matters outside the record for purposes of our decision making.
As we said in our original opinion, a direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle
for raising a claim of ineffective assistance because the record is generally undeveloped
1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West 2011). An offense under this section is a second
degree felony.
2
and cannot adequately reflect counsel’s trial strategy. Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d
107, 110-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Therefore, the proper procedure for raising a claim
of ineffective assistance is almost always a habeas corpus proceeding where the record
can be appropriately supplemented. See Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 896 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003). See also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072 (West 2015).
Accordingly, Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3