 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. State4/7/1999
State's evidence. He testified that he did not find additional investigation necessary because Gonzales verified all of the State's evidence. In addition, the record does not reflect that Gonzales provided additional information which necessitated further investigation. Trial counsel's investigation included driving past the scene of the accident. We apply heavy deference to his judgment, and conclude that the decision to not take photographs or draw diagrams of the accident area amounted to a tactical or strategic decision, Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), and constituted a reasonable investigation based on what Gonzales communicated to him. Furthermore, Gonzales does not state, and the record does not show, how the failure to fully investigate the scene of the accident may have negated a viable defense. See Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (stating that a conviction will only be reversed where the failure to investigate resulted in the failure to advance defendant's only viable defense). We do not find that trial counsel's failure to investigate fell below an objectionable standard of reasonableness.
Gonzales contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call witnesses, conduct cross-examination and confront witnesses at sentencing. To show that the failure to call witnesses amounted to ineffective assistance, the appellant must show that the witnesses would have testified in his behalf and would have been available to testify. Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 36, 40 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim. App.1983). The record reflects that trial counsel met with two jailers from Jim Wells County who knew Gonzales. However, these witnesses were not called on Gonzales's behalf at sentencing. Trial counsel learned that the jailers were fond of Gonzales. They considered Gonzales to be a model prisoner, and had entrusted him with the responsibilities of a jail trustee. At the hearing, jailer Robert Roldan testified that had he been called, he would have testified to those facts and would have recommended probation. Trial counsel testified that his decision not call the jailers rested on his judgment that it could have been potentially damaging to Gonzales. The characterization of Gonzales as a "wonderful prisoner" was not conducive to his purpose of keeping Gonzales out of prison. Based on the record, Torres did fulfill his duty to seek out and interview witnesses which would have testified favorably prior to sentencing. The facts present a plausible reason for supporting trial counsel's decision to rely on his argument and Gonzales's statement at sentencing, see Holland, 761 S.W.2d at 321, and did not amount to such a serious error as to constitute a deficient performance. We overrule appellant's first three issues.
Gonzales, in his ninth issue, asserts that Torres engaged in ineffective assistance of counsel for waiving the right to a speedy trial. In raising this issue, Gonzales fails to state how this waiver constituted ineffective assistance or how it may have prejudiced him. By failing to adequately address the issue raised, he has failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. We overrule appellant's ninth issue.
Finally, appellant also contends that the trial court and the State were aware of defense counsel's lack of effective assistance, but said nothing. Based on this contention, Gonzales asserts that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial. As stated above, the record does not support Gonzales's contention that Torres engaged in conduct which amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we overrule app
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.
|
|