 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. State4/7/1999
ied that he had merely entered the wrong side of the highway by accident. Given these facts, as communicated to trial counsel by appellant, the record does not indicate that trial counsel incorrectly applied the law to the facts in the case. Subsequent to discussing the circumstances of the accident, trial counsel explained to Gonzales the State's burden under intoxication assault. He stated that he had communicated to Gonzales that the State would not have to prove intentional conduct, but that the injury occurred by accident or mistake. See Hardie v. State, 588 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (construing the requisite mental state under section 49.08, intoxication manslaughter, and holding no culpable mental state applies); Daniel v. State, 577 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (stating that the phrase "accident or mistake," under section 49.08, is interchangeable with "unintentional"). In addition, he explained that the State would have to prove intoxication. We find trial counsel correctly informed his client of the law, the State's burden, and the range of punishment. Thus, trial counsel's performance in advising appellant did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Gonzales also contends that trial counsel incorrectly took into consideration evidence which was obviously inadmissible when advising him. Trial counsel testified the recommendation to plead guilty was based on a combination of factors. He considered and communicated the following factors to Gonzales: appellant was an illegal alien who had no driver's license, a false social security card, a false resident alien card, and a breath analysis reading of .137. He then asked Gonzales what he would do in light of those factors.
We agree with appellant's argument that the evidence supporting illegal alien status and false identification would have been inadmissible at trial based on relevancy. See Tex. R. Evid. 401 (Vernon 1998). However, there is nothing to suggest that such evidence could not have come in at punishment. Article 37.07, section 3(a) specifically allows the introduction of extraneous offenses or prior bad acts during the punishment phase of a case as long as the court deems such matters relevant to sentencing. Tex. Code Crim . Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 (Vernon 1982); see Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 952-53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The record does not suggest that Gonzales denied his illegal alien status or his possession of false papers. Therefore, the treatment of this evidence as "obviously" inadmissible amounts to speculation on the part of the appellant.
Appellant also alleges that trial counsel failed to conduct an investigation and failed to seek out and call witnesses on his behalf. Since Strickland, the rule that counsel should undertake an independent investigation of the facts of a case is not categorical. McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 501 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996). Rather counsel has the duty to make reasonable investigations and make reasonable decisions regarding those investigations. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691; see Ex parte Langley, 833 S.W.2d 141, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating that counsel had the duty to undertake a proper investigation and prepare for trial). Counsel does not need to undertake the same magnitude of investigation when a defendant pleads guilty to an alleged offense as he would in a contested proceeding. Valle v. State, 963 S.W.2d 904, 910 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, pet ref'd). Thus, the nature and extent of investigation will vary when the defendant chooses to plead guilty. See Toupal v. State, 926 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996, no pet.).
Trial counsel testified that the information which he possessed was obtained from the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|