holding that counsel’s action — failing to timely designate experts in part because his client was indigent — rendered counsel ineffective when the record “affirmatively reflect[ed]” that he “repeatedly recognized the need for defense experts”
How later courts described this case
- holding that counsel’s action — failing to timely designate experts in part because his client was indigent — rendered counsel ineffective when the record “affirmatively reflect[ed]” that he “repeatedly recognized the need for defense experts”
- holding that appellant=s failure to show that he would have accepted plea offer if adequately conveyed to him did not satisfy second Strickland prong
- holding that counsel’s continued misunderstanding of the law constituted deficient performance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHN CAYCE, Chief Justice,
dissenting and concurring on rehearing.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding that Aldrich has established by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for counsel’s performance, the result would have been different. While I agree with the majority’s holding that counsel’s performance was deficient, I do not believe the preponderance of the evidence shows that his conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversarial process that the trial produced an unjust result. I would, therefore, overrule Aldrich’s first point. Because I concur with the majority’s disposition of the second point, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for a new punishment trial. I would affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.