Longoria, Joe v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2000
• Docket: 13-99-00799-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-99-799-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

JOE LONGORIA , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Joe Longoria, appellant, pleaded guilty to murder pursuant to a plea bargain and was sentenced to ninety-nine years imprisonment. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (b) (Vernon 2000). By a single issue, appellant contends he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel.

To demonstrate that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel, appellant must show that: (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We apply a strong presumption that counsel's actions fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

Appellant argues that since counsel advised him to plead guilty and accept a ninety-nine year sentence, he received no appreciable benefit from having entered his plea because the ninety-nine year sentence is "the maximum prison term available" for murder. However, our review of the record indicates that appellant received other benefits from the plea bargain. As part of that agreement, the State abandoned one of its enhancement paragraphs against appellant. Moreover, the State agreed to have appellant's sentence on this charge run concurrently with another ninety-nine year sentence imposed for aggravated assault in a different cause arising in Calhoun County, Texas.

In short, appellant is challenging the negotiating tactics employed by counsel. As noted above, however, appellant did receive benefits from the bargain obtained by counsel. There is no evidence in the record before us to indicate that a better deal was possible.

Based on the record before us, we conclude that counsel's actions inured to appellant's benefit and did not fall beyond the range of professional competence.

Appellant's issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 31st day of August, 2000.