Jaubert v. State

65 S.W.3d 73
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 20, 2001
Docket10-99-090-CR to 10-99-094-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 65 S.W.3d 73 (Jaubert v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jaubert v. State, 65 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinions

OPINION

BILL VANCE, Justice.

James Jaubert, Jr., was charged with one count of murder and four counts of attempted murder. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. §§ 19.02, 15.01 (Vernon 1994). He pled guilty to each charge and elected to have a jury assess punishment. Jaubert was sentenced to sixty years for the murder charge, twenty years for one attempted murder charge, and ten years for each additional attempted murder charge. He appeals, asserting only that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We will affirm the judgment.

In his sole issue for review, Jaubert contends that his retained trial counsel “failed to render effective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas State Constitution.” It is undisputed that these claims were not presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial or otherwise. We have determined that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims must be presented to the trial court to be preserved for appellate review. Foster v. State, 8 S.W.3d 445, 446 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (citing Gonzalez v. State, 994 S.W.2d 369, 372-74 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet.)); Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a).

Jaubert’s case was transferred to this court by order of the Texas Supreme Court. There are some who argue that we should apply the law of the court from which the case was transferred to cases transferred out of one court of appeals and into another. We disagree. Because this case has been transferred to us, we apply our interpretation of Rule 33.1. Therefore, because this complaint has not been preserved as required by Rule 33.1 and Gonzalez, we overruled Jaubert’s complaint.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Justice GRAY concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kwasi Powers v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Worthy v. State
312 S.W.3d 34 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Worthy, Robert Lee
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010
Willie Fred Houston v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
William Charles "Billy" Bishop v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Lewis v. State
191 S.W.3d 335 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Hinson v. State
166 S.W.3d 331 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Loredo v. State
157 S.W.3d 26 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Eusebio Loredo v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Nelson v. Williams
135 S.W.3d 202 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Brice v. Denton
135 S.W.3d 139 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
in Re J. Heath Gibson
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Waltmon v. State
76 S.W.3d 148 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Robert Eric Waltmon v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
Jaubert v. State
74 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Broussard v. State
68 S.W.3d 197 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Karl L. Dahlstrom v. Brazos County
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.W.3d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaubert-v-state-texapp-2001.