## IN T HE C OURT OF CRIMINAL APPE ALS OF T EX AS No. AP-75,500
Ex parte RI CKY EUGEN E KERR, Applicant On Ap pli c atio n f

or Wri t of Ha be a s Co rp us , Ca us e No . 9 4- CR- 70 19 of

the 29 0th Judic ia l D istri c t Co ur

t, B e xar County
W O M ACK , J., delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which M EYERS , P RICE , J OHN S ON , K EAS L ER , H O L C O MB , and C OCHRAN

, JJ., joined. K

EL L ER , P.J., dissented. H ERV EY , J., did not parti cipate. Th is i s an a

pp lic atio n f

or wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s f ile d p ur su ant t o th e pr ov isi on s o f Art ic le 11.071 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. On Novembe r 16, 1995, the a pplicant was c onvicted of the offe nse of c apital murder . The jury answe red the specia l issues submit ted under Article 37.071 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, and the trial court, a ccor dingly , set punishment at death. This Court af firmed the( Ker r , Ex par t e - 2)

K e rr v . S ta te , N o . 7 2 ,2 6 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . Ju n e 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 ). 1 46 6 U . S. 66 8 (19 8 4 ). 2 Id ., at 687
. 3 53 9 U . S. 51 0 (20 0 3 ). 4 a pp lic ant’ s c onvic tio n a

nd se nte nc e on

dir e c t a pp e a l. 1 In his application, the applica nt presente d five a lleg ations in which he c halleng ed the validity of his conviction and r esulting se ntence . The trial c ourt held an e videntiary hear ing a nd enter ed finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. We asked the pa

rties to brief two issues: (1) How should the trial cour t decide the question of pre

judice under

a W iggins/St rickland

claim of inef

fec tive assistance ? and (2) Once a trial court de cides the issue of prejudice and make s findings of fac t and conc lusions of law, what standard should this court use in de terminingwhether those finding s and conc lusions are appropr iate? On the first issue, we looked to Strickland v. W ashington , in which the Supreme Court

2
c re ate d a tw o- pa rt te st f or e va luatin gine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la ims un de r t

he Sixth Amendment. In order

to show that counsel’s a ssistance wa s so defe ctive as to re quire re versa l, a defe ndant must show both that counsel’s per formanc e wa s deficie nt, and that this deficient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the de fense
. Th is r e qu ir e s a

sh ow ingthat c ouns e l’ s e rr or s w e re so se ri ou s a s to deprive the def

endant of a fa ir trial, a tria l whose re sult is reliable. Unless a de fenda

nt makes both showing s, it cannot be said that the conviction or de ath sentenc e re sulted from a br eakdown in the adver sary proce ss that rende rs the re sult unreliable. 3 In W igg ins v . S

mi th , the Supreme Court a pplied this two-part test to an alleg ation of 4( Ker r , Ex par t e - 3)

Id ., a t 533. 5 Id
. , at 53 7
- 3 8 (r ef

erri ng t o t he C o urt ’ s ho l d i ng i n W i l l i am s v . Tay l or , 5 9 2 U .S . 3 6 2 (2 0 0 0 ))
. 6 I d. , at 5 3 8 . 7 I d. , a t 534. 8 E x part e M art i nez , 195 S. W . 3d 713 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 2006) a n d Ex par t e W oods , 17 6 S . W . 3d 22 4 ( T e x . Cr i m. 9 A p p . 20 0 5 ).

20 4 S.W . 3 d 39 1 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 20 0 6 ). 10 ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel for the failure to adequately investigate and pr esent mitigation e vid e nc e duri nga

c a pit a l- mur de r t

ri a l. T he Court

e mph a size d th at Strickland does not requir e counsel to “inve stigate eve ry conce ivable line of mitig atingevidenc e no matter how unlikely

the eff ort would be to assist the def endant at sentencing ,” nor doe s it require c ounsel to prese nt mitigatingevidenc e in eve ry case . In reve rsingthe sentenc e of de ath, the Court stated that the 5 available mitigatingevidenc e re g ardingthe def endant’ s troubled history

was strong er, a

nd the State’s evidenc e in support of the de ath pena lty far weaker, tha

n a pre vious case in whic h the Court found prejudice
. I t concluded that the available mitigation evidenc e which w as not 6 prese nted duringsentenc ing might well have inf luence d the jury ’s appr aisal of the de fenda nt’s moral culpa

bility
. This undermined c onfidenc e in the sente nce of death. 7 8 We noted sever al opinions in which this court has discussed the a pplicability

of the Strickland/W

iggins test to the Texas capital punishment framework. We articulate d this standard 9
rec ently in Ex pa rte Gonzales : 10 [Under Strickland

] an a pp lic ant m

us t sh owthat th e re wa s a rea sonable proba

bility that, absent the e rror s, the jury would have conclude d that the balanc e of the ag g ravating a nd mitigating circ umstances did not war rant de ath. Texas’ ca

pital sentencing scheme does not involve the direc t balancingof ag g ravating a nd mitigatingcirc umstances. It asks the jury to answer

a mitigation( Ker r , Ex par t e - 4)

Id
. , at 39 3
- 9 4 (i nt ernal ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ). 11 iss ue . We have a da pte d th e Sup re me Court ’s pr e jud ic e te st t o require a showingthat there is a rea sonable proba bility that, absent the er rors, the jury

would have a

nswere d the mitigation issue dif fe re ntl y . ‘ A r e a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity is a pr ob a bil ity su ff ic ie nt t o undermine c onfidenc e in the outcome.’ 11 We remande d the ca se to the convic ting c ourt for the judge of that cour t to apply the Gonzales standard. I

n our orde r of r emand, we said, “Since the trial court ha d the bene fit of direc tly observingthe entire habea s proce eding , one which la sted nea rly two wee ks, it is i n the best position to weigh this issue and de termine the issue of prejudice under the standard that we have stated.” On re m an d , th e j u d ge f

o un d th attri al co un s el fa i l edt o p re p ar e f o r t h e p un i s h m en ts t age of the trial be cause they

believed the jury

would not find the applica nt guilty . They

wer e not awa re of “compe lling evide nce of phy sical and e motional abuse, familial viol ence , wre tched treatment of the def

endant by his father , alcoholism, the mental re tardation of siblings, drug abuse, a history of hea d injuries, lear

ning disa biliti es, and possible fe tal alcohol sy ndrome.” The judg e conc luded, by

asking , “Would the jury

have r eac hed a dif

fer ent conc lusion knowingabout some or a ll of these mitigating f actor s? ” We ag ree that this is t he issue. The judg e continued, “ This of course , is the harde st question to answer since it involves a pre diction conce rningan eve nt which neve r happe ned. Consideringthe fa ct that the jury never hear d any mitigatingevidenc e, whe n plenty of it exi sted, this court ca nnot conclude that [ the applicant] rec eived a

fair he aringon the issue of punishment.” She r ecommende d that relief be g rante d.( Ker r , Ex par t e - 5)

Ex par t e Van A ls t

yne , 23 9 S.W . 3 d 81 5 , 91 7 (T ex. C r. A p p . 20 0 7 ). 12 E x part e Reed , — S.W . 3 d — (T ex. C r. A p p . A P
- 7 5 , 6 9 3 , D ecem b er 17 , 20 0 8 ). 13 “In post-conviction habe as-c orpus re view, this Court is the ulti mate fa ct finder
. Neve rtheless, the c onvicting c ourt is the ‘orig inal fac tfinder’ in post-conviction habea s corpus proce eding s, and as a

matter of c ourse this Court pay s g reat defe renc e to the convic ting c ourt’s re c omm e nd e d f

ind ing s o f f

a c t ..., a s lo nga s th e y

are su pp or te d b y the re c or d, pa

rt ic ula rl y in those matters with re g ard to the w eig ht and cr edibility of the witnesse s ....” When this court’s 12 independe nt reviewof the re cord r evea ls that the trial judge ’s finding s and conc lusions are not supported by

the re cord, the Court of Criminal Appeals may exercise its authority

to make c ontr ary or a lte rn ativ e fi nd ing s and

c on c lus ion s. 13 In this case, the judg e’s f

indings a nd conclusions ar e supported by the re cord, a

nd we
a c c e pt t he m. Relief is g rante d as to the judg ment of death and the sente nce. T he applica nt is remanded to the custody

of the Sherif

f of B exar County

for a new punishment hea

ringand other proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. Deliver ed Apr il 1, 2009. Do not publish.