Darcy, Christopher Earl

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Decided: October 15, 2015
• Docket: PD-1094-15
• Status: Published

Opinion

PD-1094-15 PD-1094-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/13/2015 2:57:54 PM Accepted 10/15/2015 2:04:13 PM ABEL ACOSTA LISA C. MCMINN JOHN R. MESSINGER CLERK STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OFFICE OF ASST. STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 13046 STACEY M. GOLDSTEIN CAPITOL STATION ASST. STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AUSTIN, TX 78711 (512) 463-1660

October 13, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Christopher Earl Darcy v. The State of Texas Cause No. PD-1094-15

The State’s petition in the above cause presents the question of whether a technical violation of an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which does not constitute a total deprivation, is subject to a harm analysis. The Amarillo Court of Appeals in Darcy concluded that such error is structural and therefore never harmless. After the State filed its petition, the Eastland Court of Appeals in Rubalcado v. State, No. 11-11- 00028-CR, on remand from this Court, reached the opposite determination. Expressly disagreeing with Darcy, the court stated that this Court’s decision to remand (Rubalcado), instead of simply reversing for a new trial, indicated that the error is subject to a harm analysis. The Eastland Court’s decision has created a split among the lower courts of appeals and therefore provides further reason for this Court to grant review in Darcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(a).

/s/ Lisa C. McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney

cc via electronic service: David M. Green October 15, 2015 R. Walton Weaver