Shahid Karriem Ansari, III v. State
Opinion
ACCEPTED
06-14-00220-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
9/18/2015 3:34:37 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
SHAHID KARRIEM ANSARI III, § TEXARKANA, TEXAS APPELLANT § 9/21/2015 8:33:00 AM § DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
v. § Nos. 06-14-00220-CR §
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE §
STATE'S BRIEF
FROM THE 354nr JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL CAUSE NUMBER 27,739 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. BEACOM, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR.
District Attorney
Hunt County, Texas
KELI M. AIKEN
First Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box441
4th Floor Hunt County Courthouse Greenville, TX 7 5403
kaiken@huntcounty.net
ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT (903) 408-4180 REQUESTED FAX (903) 408-4296 State Bar No. 24043442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... .ii Index of Authorities ..................................................................................................... iii Issues Presented .................................................................................................... 5-10
1. Appellant's trial counsel provided effective assistance by presenting the best trial strategy he could when his client chose to plead true to the elements of the offense and throw himself on the mercy of the comi ................................. 5-10
Prayer ........................................................................................................................ 11 Certificate of Service ................................................................................................ 12 Ce1iificate of Compliance with Rule 9 .4 .................................................................. 12
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Blott v. State, 588 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ........................................... 6 Eddie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ....................................... 6 Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ................................... 5 Johnson v. State, 959 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997) ................................ 6 Kimmelan v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 91 L.Ed. 305 (1986) .................................. 6 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L.Ed. 674 (1984) .............................. 5-6 Moore v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ........................................ 6-7 Toupal v. State, 926 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996)) ......................... 6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA
SHAHID KARRIEM ANSARI III, § APPELLANT § §
v. § NOS. 06-14-00220-CR §
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE §
STATE'S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES the State of Texas, Appellee, in this appeal from Cause No.
27,739 in the 354th Judicial District Court in and for Hunt County, Texas, Honorable Richard A. Beacom, Jr., Presiding, now before the Sixth District Comi of Appeals, and respectfully submits this its brief to the Court in suppmi of the judgment of sentence in the comi below.
STATE'S RESPONSE TO POINTS OF ERROR ONE
Appellant's trial counsel provided effective assistance by presenting the best trial strategy he could when his client chose to plead true to the elements of the offense and throw himself on the mercy of the court.
Argument and Authorities
In order to prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective, appellant must prove that: (1) his counsel's representation was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance was so serious that it prejudiced his defense. That is, appellant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional nonns and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficiency, the result of the trial would have been different. See Stricklandv. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 674 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
The review of counsel's representation is highly deferential, and the Comi should indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable representation. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The burden is on the appellant to overcome that presumption by identifying the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged to have constituted the ineffective assistance and to affirmatively prove that they fall below the professional norm or reasonableness. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Additionally, appellant must prove that counsel's en-ors, judged by the totality of the representation, denied him a fair trial. Merely showing that they had some conceivable effect on the proceedings is inadequate to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693.
In evaluating the first prong of the Strickland inquiry, appellant must rebut the presumption that counsel's representation was competent by proving that the challenged assistance was not sound trial strategy. Kimm,elan v. Morrison, 4 77 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed. 305 (1986) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-689); Johnson v. State, 959 S.W.2d 230, 236-237 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997). The comi must not second-guess through hindsight the strategy of counsel at trial; nor should the fact that another attorney might have pursued a different course of action support a finding of ineffectiveness. Blott v. State, 588 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The fact that another attorney, including appellant's counsel on appeal, might have pursued a different course of action does not indicate that the trial att0111ey was ineffective. Id.
Fmihermore, when an Appellant pleads guilty (or true), trial counsel does not have to perform the same level of independent investigation he would in a contested proceeding. Toupal v. State, 926 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 1996); Eddie v. State, 100 S.W.3d 437, 442 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002). The State only has to prove one of the allegations in the motion for the trial comi to revoke (or adjudicate) probation. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926
(Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
A. Appellant chose to plead true to the allegations that the State could prove.
This was not Appellant's first motion to adjudicate so Appellant knew what to expect at the hearing. A year before Appellant faced a motion to adjudicate. RRl 7/pp.1-39. During that hearing the State offered proof that Appellant: 1) made only $65.00 in payments while on probation; 2) had only completed 44 hours of community service; 3) failed to complete the anger management class; 4) did not complete the psychological evaluation; 5) failed to appear at a violation review and 6) was an-ested for family violence assault. RR19/p.18, lines 10-21. At the prior MTA Appellant presented no witnesses. RRl 78/pp.1-39. Appellant did testify at the end of the prior hearing when the comi asked him questions. RRl 7/pp.36-37. At the end of Appellant's first MTA, Appellant was allowed to remain on probation with amended terms including: an extension of the length of probation, a 90 day sanction and work release. RRl 7/pp.38-39; RR19/p.9, lines 9-16 and pp.11-12.
Appellant made the decision to plead true as part of his overall trial strategy of admitting to everything but asking the trial court to give him another chance at probation. Appellant had the opportunity to have his MTA set off so the State could order certified copies of the two judgments for the offenses in paragraphs 1 and 2 or pled true and have a hearing the following week. RR18/p.5, lines 7-19. Trial counsel spoke with Appellant and then came back onto the record with
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shahid Karriem Ansari, III v. State (Shahid Karriem Ansari, III v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.