1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 08- 482- CR
DE B R AH P E AS E AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 211TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antD ebr ah Pea se en t er ed an ope n pl ea ofgui l t y t o t he cha r ge of pos se ss i on ofm or e t han f ouran d l es s t han 200 gr am s ofm et ham phe t am i ne
w i t h i nt entto del i ver , an d af t era pun i shm enth ear i ng, the t r i al co ur tsent enced hert o t w ent y- f ouryear s’ i m pr i son m e n t. I n a si ngl e i ssue, Pease ar gues t hat she w as deni ed ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel because hert r i al coun sel f ai l ed to p ro p e rl ya d v i s e h e r re g a rd i n g th e S ta te ’s o ri g i n a l p l e a o ffe r.2

W e appl y a t w o- pr ong ed t estto i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel cl ai m s. Str i ckl and v. W ashi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 ); Sa l i n a s v. S tate , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Mal let tv. S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2

– 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Herna n dez v. S tate , 988 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S. W . 3d 808, 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e re is n o re q u i re m e n t th a t a n a p p e l l a te c o u rt a p p roa c h the tw o -pro n g e d i n q u i ry o f Str i ckl and i n any par t i cul aror der , oreven add r es s bot h c om pone nt s oft he i nqui r y i ft he def end antm ak es an i ns uf f i ci ent s h o w i n g o n o n e c o m p o n e n t. Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2069 . W hen a def end antas se r t s i ne f f ec t i ve as si st anc e i n t he pl ea - bar gai ni ng pr oce ss , i n or der t o sa t i sf y t he se con d Str i ckl and pr ong , she m ustest abl i sh t hat butf orhe rt r i al co uns el ’ s i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e s he w oul d have acce pt ed t he p l e a o ffe r. S e eA ldri ch v. S tate , N o. 2
- 05
- 00 30 3- C R , 2 00 9 W L 26 50 61 1, at *32 n. 14 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW or t h Au g. 25, 2009 , no p et . h. ) ( op. on r eh’ g) ( ci t i ng E

x parte Lem ke , 1 3 S .W .3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 6

– 9 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), D i c k e rso n v. S tate , 87 S. W . 3d 632, 638 ( Tex. A pp. — San Anton i o 2 0 02, no pet . ) , an d S tate v. W i l l i am s , 83 S. W . 3d 371, 374– 75 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pus C h ri s ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.)). I n t hi s ca se , t he St at e’ s or i gi nal pl ea of f eri ncl ude d a r ec om m end at i on of t en year s’ def er r ed adj udi cat i on. Pease’ s appoi n ted tri al counsel t ol d Pease3

a b o u t th e o ffe rb u t a d v is e d h e r th a t h e th o u g h t h e c o u l d g e t a b e tte r o ffe r. T w o d a y s b e fo re th e o ffer ex p i red , P e a se retaine d a d i fferen t atto rne yto
r epr es enthe r . Pe as e d i d notac ce ptt he St at e’ s or i gi nal of f er , an d i tex pi r ed. A tt h e p u n is h m e n t h e a r in g , P e a s e ’s f ir s t a t t o r n e y t e s t if ie d t h a ta tt h e t im e oft he S t at e’ s or i gi nal pl ea of f er , he w as suf f er i ng f r om heal t h i ssues and t hat hi s m edi cat i on pr event ed hi m f r om gi vi ng Pease goo d advi ce. H e t est i f i ed t hat had he be en i n goo d he al t h, he w oul d have r ec om m end ed t hats he t ak e t he of f er . Pe as e’ s se cond at t or neyt es t i f i ed t hathe di d notr ec al l kn ow i ng a bout t he or i gi nal pl ea of f erunt i l i tha d e xpi r ed. W e n e e d n o t a d d res s w h e th e r, u n d e r t h e fi rst Str i ckl and p ro n g , P e a s e ’s f i r stat t or ney w as i nef f ect i ve due t o hi s advi ce r egar di ng t he S t at e’ s pl ea of f er bec aus e Pe as e h as nots at i sf i ed t he se con d Str i ckl and p ro n g . See Str

i ckl and, 466 U . S. at 697 , 104 S. C t . at 206 9. Not hi ng i n t he r ec or d be f or e u s sh ow s t hatPease w oul d have accepted t he S t at e’ s or i gi nal pl ea of f erhad hert r i al
c o u n s e l a d v i s e d h e r d i ffe re n tl y . S ee A ldr i ch , 2009 W L2650 611, a t*32 n. 14 ( hol di ng t hatappel l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o show t hat he w oul d have accept ed pl ea of f er i fadequa t el y conve yed t o hi m di d nots at i sf y s ec ond Str i ckl and pr ong ) . Pease di d n o t t e s t i f y a t t h e p u n i s h m e n t h e a r i n g , a s s e r t i n a m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i al , or even ar gue on appeal t hat she w oul d have accept ed t he pl ea of f erhad coun sel4

advi sed herd i f f er ent l y. A ccor di ngl y, w e o ver r ul e P ease’ s sol e i ssue on appeal
a n d affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r15, 2009