NO. 01-14-00897-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

ENRIQUE CHAVEZ AGUIRRE § APPELLANT §
VS. § §
THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 0950986
IN THE 178 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

STANLEY G. SCHNEIDER SCHNEIDER & MCKINNEY, P.C.
Texas Bar No. 17790500 440 Louisiana, Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 951-9994 (Office) (713) 224-6008 (Fax) stans3112@aol.com (Email)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT ACCEPTED
01-14-00897-cr FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/24/2015 4:40:12 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKI denti ty o f Pa rti es a nd Co uns el

Th e fo l l o wi n g i s a co m

p let e l i s t o f al l p art i es t o th e t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t

, an d

t h e n am es an d ad d res s es o f al l t ri al an d ap p el l at e co u n s el :

En ri q u e Ch av ez Ag u i rre .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ap p el l an t

St at e o f Tex as

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ap p el l ee

M i k e M o n k s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ap p el lan t ’ s Ret ai n ed Co u n s el at Tri al

4 6 1 5 So u t h wes t Freeway , Su i t e 5 2 0

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 02 7

Pat ri ci a Ven t u ra.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ap p el lan t ’ s Ret ai n ed Co u n s el at Tri al

4 6 1 5 So u t h wes t Freeway , Su i t e 5 2 0

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 02 7

Ch arl es Bro d s ky

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As s i s t an t Di s tri ct At t o rn ey at Tri al

1 2 0 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 00 2

Eri n Ep l ey

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As s i s t an t Di s tri ct At t o rn ey at Tri al

1 2 0 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 00 2

St an l ey G. Sch n ei d er .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ap p el l an t’ s Ret ai n ed Co u n s el o n Ap p eal

4 4 0 Lo u is i an a, Su i t e 8 00

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 00 2

Al an Cu rry

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As si s t an t Di s t ri ct At t orn ey o n Ap p eal

1 2 0 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 00 2

Ho n . Dav i d L. M en d o za .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ri al J u d g e

iTa bl e o f Co ntents

Id en t i t y o f Part i es an d Co u n s el

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Tab le o f Co n t en t s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

Li s t o f Au t h o ri t i es

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v

St at em en t o f t he Cas e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Is s u es Pres en t ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Is s u e On e: Th e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s d is cret i o n i n d en y i n g Ap p el lan t ’ s M o t io n fo r New Tri al

.

Is s u e Two : Ap p el l an t w as d en i ed effect iv e as si s t an ce o f co u ns el b as ed

o n t ri al co u n s el ’ s fai l u re t o i n ves t i g at e t he l aw an d fact s n eces s ary t o
p res en t a sp eed y t ri al cl ai m b as ed o n t h e d el ay i n h is arres t fro m t h e t i m e

o f t h e i n d i ct m en t i n t h i s cau s e o n J u n e 3

, 2 0 0 3

, t o h i s arres t on Oct ob er 2 6 , 2 0 1 3

.

Heari n g o n t h e M o t i o n fo r New Tri al

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Arg um en t an d Au t h o ri t i es i n Su pp o rt o f Is s u es On e an d Two

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

In effect i v e As s i s t an ce o f Co un s el

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

Law Pert ai n i n g t o Sp eed y Tri al

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

A. Len g t h o f t h e d el ay

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

B. Reas on fo r t h e d el ay

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
C. As s ert i o n o f t he ri g h t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

D. Preju d i ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

E. Bal an ci ng Tes t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4

F. Si x t h Am en d m en t Preju di ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

iiPray er.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8

Cert i fi cat e o f Co m

p l i an ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8

iiiLi s t o f Autho ri ti es

Ca s es Pa g e

Ba n ks v. S t a te

, 8 1 9 S.W .2 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 2 (Tex . Ap p .– San An t o ni o 1 99 1

, p et . ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . 2 2

Ba r ker v. W i n g o , 4 0 7 U.S. 5 1 4 (1 97 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

Bo s wo r t h v. S t a t e , 0 6 -1 2 -0 0 05 8 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 5 6 33 2 1 (Tex . Ap p .— Tex ark an a Feb . 1 5 , 2 0 13 , n o. p et . h .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

Br a ns cu m v. S t a t e , 7 5 0 S.W .2 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 5 (Tex . Ap p .— Am ari l l o 1 98 8 , n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

Br o wn v. S t a te

, 9 7 4 S.W .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 (Tex . Ap p . San An t o n io 1 9 98 , p et . ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . . 4 6

c.f

. Un i t ed S t a t es v. Es ca mi l l a , 2 4 4 F. Su pp . 2 d 7 6 0, 7 6 9 (S.D. Tex . 2 0 0 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

Ca n t u v. S t a te

, 2 5 3 S.W .3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

Co wa r t v. Ha r

g et t

, 1 6 F.3 d 6 4 2 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

Del u n a v. S t at e , 0 5 -1 0 -0 1 33 9 -CR, 2 0 1 2 W L 3 6 42 3 0 8 (Tex . Ap p .— Dal l as Au g . 2 7 , 2 0 1 2

, p et

. ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4, 3 5 , 4 3

Do g g et t v. Un i t ed

S t at es , 5 0 5 U.S. 6 4 7 , 6 5 1 -5 2 (1 9 9 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

ivDo kt er v. S t a t e ,

2 8 1 S.W .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 8 (Tex . Ap p .— Tex ark an a 2 0 0 9, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . 3 5

Do l es v. S t a t e , 8 7 6 S.W .2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 6 (Tex . Ap p .– Ty l er, 1 98 9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

Dr a go o v. S t a t e, 9 6 S.W .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 , 2 8

Ex p a rt e Ewi n g, 5 7 0 S.W .2 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 7 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

Ex p a rt e Ku n kl e , 8 5 2 S.W .2 d 4 9 9 , 5 0 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p .),

cer t . d en i ed

, Ku n kl e v. S t a t e , 1 1 4 S.Ct . 1 2 2, 1 2 6 L.Ed .2 d 8 7 (1 9 9 3 ).

. . . . 2 0

Ex p a rt e Li l l

y, 6 5 6 S.W .2 d 4 9 0 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Ex p a rt e Ra b o rn , 6 5 8 S.W .2 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 83 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

Ex p a rt e W

el b o r n , 7 8 5 S.W .2 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 90 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 , 2 2 -2 3

Ex p a rt e Y

ba r r a , 6 2 9 S.W .2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 9 n .1 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p. 1 9 8 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

Go n z a l es v. S t at e , PD-0 7 2 4 -1 2 , 2 0 1 3 W L 7 6 5 5 7 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . Feb . 2 7 , 2 0 1 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 , 3 7

Go o d r u m v. Qu ar t er ma n , 5 4 7 F.3 d 2 4 9, 2 6 0 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

Gr een e v. S t a t e , 9 2 8 S.W .2 d at 1 26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6

vGu a

j a r d o v. S t a t e , 9 9 9 S.W .2 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 0 (Tex . Ap p .— Ho u s . [1 4 th Di s t .] 1 9 9 9, p et . ref’ d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

Ha r ri s v. S t a t e, 8 2 7 S.W .2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

Ho d g es v. Un i t ed

S t a t es , 4 0 8 F.2 d 5 4 3, 5 5 1 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 6 9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3

Ja cks o n v. S ta te

, 8 5 7 S.W .2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 3 (Tex . Ap p .– Ho u s t on [1 4 t h Di s t .]

, 1 9 9 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . 2 0

Ki mml ema n v. Mo r r i s on , 4 7 7 U.S. 3 6 5 , 3 8 0 (1 9 8 6 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

Kl o pf er v. No r t h Ca ro l i n a , 3 8 6 U.S. 2 1 3 , 2 2 3 -2 6 (1 9 6 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

Kyl es v. W

hi t l ey , 5 1 4 U.S. 4 1 9 , 4 3 0 (1 9 9 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

Lewi s v. Dr et

ke

, 3 5 5 F.3 d 3 6 4, 3 6 8 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

McMa n n v. Ri ch a r ds o n , 3 9 7 U.S. 7 5 9 (1 97 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

Mo o r e v. Jo h n s on , 1 9 4 F.3 d 5 8 6, 6 0 4 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Or a nd v. S t a t e , 2 5 4 S.W .3 d 5 6 0 (Tex . Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 2 00 8 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

Pet e v. S t a t e , 5 0 1 S.W .2 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 7 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 73 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

viPh i l l ip s v. S ta te

,

6 5 0 S.W .2 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 9 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 83 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 , 2 9

Pu cket t v. S t a t e, 2 7 9 S.W .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 7 (Tex . Ap p .— Tex ark an a 2 0 0 9, n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . 3 8

Ra mi r ez v. S t a t e , 6 5 S.W .3 d 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 (Tex . Ap p .– Am ari l l o, 2 0 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

Ri ver a v. S t a te

, 9 9 0 S.W .2 d 8 8 2 , 8 9 1 (Tex . Ap p .— Au s t i n 1 99 9 , p et . ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 3 5

Ro d ri g u ez v. Y o u ng , 9 0 6 F.2 d 1 1 53

, 1 1 6 1 (7 t h Ci r. 1 99 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

S a n d er s v. S ta t e , 7 1 5 S.W .2 d 7 7 1 , 7 7 5 (Tex . Ap p .– Ty l er, 1 98 6 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

S h a w v. S t a t e , 1 1 7 S.W .3 d 8 8 3 , 8 9 0 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

S t a t e v. Fl o r es , 9 5 1 S.W .2 d 1 3 4 , 1 4 1 (Tex . Ap p .— Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 9 9 7 , n o p et .).

. . . . 3 1 , 3 4

S t a t e v. Jo n es , 1 6 8 S.W .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 5 (Tex . Ap p .— Dal l as 2 00 5

, p et . ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

S t a t e v. Ma n l ey , 2 2 0 S.W .3 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 8 (Tex . Ap p .— W aco 2 00 7 , n o p et .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

S t a t e v. Mu n o z

, 9 9 1 S.W .2 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 99 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8

S t a t e v. Per ki n s , 9 1 1 S.W .2 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 1 (Tex . Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 9 5 , n o p et

. ).

. . . . . . . . . . 2 6

viiS t a t e v. Ra n g el

,

9 8 0 S.W .2 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 3 -4 5 (Tex . Ap p.— San An t on i o 1 9 9 8 , n o p et .).

. . . . . . 2 7

S t a t e v. S mi t h

, 6 6 S.W .3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9 -9 0 (Tex . Ap p

. — Ty l er 2 0 0 1 , n o p et

. ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

S t a t e v. S mi t h

, 0 6 -1 2 -0 0 17 4 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 6 2 41 2 6 (Tex . Ap p .— Tex ark an a Feb . 2 0 , 2 0 13 , n o. p et . h .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 , 3 8

S t r i ckl a nd

v. W a s h in gt o n , 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8 (1 98 4 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

S t r u n k v. Un i t ed

S t a t es , 4 1 2 U.S. 4 3 4 (1 97 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

Un i ted S t a t es v. Ber

g f el d

, 2 8 0 F.3 d 4 8 6, 4 8 9 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 , 3 6

Un i ted S t a t es v. Ca r d

o n a , 3 0 2 F.3 d 4 9 4, 4 9 8 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 -3 7

Un i ted S t a t es v. Do g

g et t

, 9 0 6 F.2 d 5 7 3, 5 8 2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

Un i ted S t a t es v. S

er n a -Vi l l a r r ea l

, 3 5 2 F.3 d 2 2 5, 2 3 0 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

W el l s v. S t a t e , 3 1 9 S.W .3 d 8 2 , 8 8 (Tex . Ap p .— San An t o n i o 2 01 0 , p et

. ref’ d ).

. . . . . . . . . 2 7

W i g gi n s v. S mi t h

, 1 2 3 S.Ct . 2 55 7 , 2 5 3 6-2 5 3 8 (2 0 0 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

W i l l ia ms v. Ta

yl or , 5 2 9 U.S. 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 (2 0 0 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

viiiZa mo r a no v. S t a t e ,

8 4 S.W .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 9 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 -2 6, 3 3 , 3 5

Sta tutes , Co des a nd Co ns ti tuti o na l Pro v is i o ns :

U.S. C O N S T

. X I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p as s i m

U.S. C O N S T

. X I V

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

ixTo the Ho no ra bl e J us ti ces o f the Co urt o f Appea l s :

No w Co m es , En ri q ue Ch av ez Ag u irre, b y an d t h ro u g h h is at t o rn ey , St an l ey G.

Sch nei der, an d fi l es t h i s ap p el l at e bri ef req u es t i n g t h a t t h i s Co u rt rev ers e t h e t ri al

co u rt ju d g m en t an d rem an d t h i s cau s e t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r a n ew t ri al an d wo u ld

s h o w t h i s Co u rt t he fo l l o wi n g:

Sta tem ent o f the Ca s e

Ap p el l an t was i nd i ct ed o n J u n e 2 5, 2 0 0 3

, an d ch arg ed wi t h th e fel o ny o ffen s e

o f ag g rav at ed s ex u al as s au lt o f a ch i l d w h erei n i t was al l eg ed t h at h e di d th e n a n d

t h ere u nl awfu ll y i n t en t i on al l y an d k n owi n g l y cau s e t h e s ex ual o rg an of Yes en i a

Nu n ez, a p ers o n y o u n g er t h an fo u rt een y ears o f ag e an d n o t t h e s p o u s e o f t h e

Defen d an t , t o co n t act t h e m o ut h o f En ri qu e Ch av ez Ag ui rre. CR 7. Ap p el l an t was

arres t ed o n o r ab o u t O ct o b er 2 6

, 2 0 1 3, o v er t en y ears aft er h e w as i n d ict ed

. CR 8.

Th e St at e fi l ed i t s n o ti ce o f i n t en t t o u s e ex tran eo u s offen s es o n Sep t em ber 6

, 2 0 1 4.

Th e Co m p l ai n an t ’ s m ed ical r e c o r d s were fi l ed o n Sep t em b er 8, 20 1 4, wh i ch were

acco m pan i ed b y an u n swo rn b u s i nes s reco rd affi dav i t c o n t ai ni n g reco rd s o f a

p h y s i cal ex am i n at i o n co n d u ct ed o n May 29

, 2 0 0 3

, b y Dr. Reb ecca Gi rad et

. CR 1 8

-

3 0

. Ap p el l a n t w a s fo u n d g ui l t y b y a ju ry o n Oct o b er 22

, 2 0 1 4. Th e t ri al co u rt

a ss es s ed hi s p u n is h m en t at 3 0 y ears co n fi n em en t i n t h e Tex as D ep art m en t o f Cri m ina l

J u s t i ce.

1A p p e l l a n t fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al o n No v em b er 2

, 20 1 4, wh erei n h e

al l eg ed t h at h i s at to rn ey was i neffect i ve fo r no t p res en t i n g ch aract er w i t n e s s es an d

n o t rai s i ng a s p eed y t ri al cl ai m

. At t ach ed to th e m o t i o n was an affi d av i t fro m En ri q u e

Ag u i rre wh o s tat ed t h at i n No v em b er 2 0 1 2

, t h e A p p el la n t r e n e wed h is p erm an en t

res i den cy ap p l i cat i o n wi t h t h e Un i t ed St at es Im m ig rat i on Serv i ce. As p art o f t h at

p ro ces s , Ap pel l an t su b m i t ted h i s fi n g erp ri n t s t o t h e Un i t ed St at es Im m i g rat i o n

Serv i ce an d h is p erm an en t res i d en c y a p p l i cat i on was g ran t ed

. Ap p el l an t ’ s

i m m i g rat i o n at t o rn ey ’ s fi l e was at t ach ed t o t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al wh i ch i n cl u d ed

co p ies o f Ap p el l an t ’ s p erm an en t res i d en cy card t hat w as ren ewed i n Decem b er 2 0 1 2.

Th e t ri al co u rt h el d a h eari ng i n ci d e n t t o t he m o t io n fo r n ew tri al an d aft er h eari n g

ev i d en ce d en i ed t h e m ot i o n fo r n e w t r i al

. N o t i ce o f ap p eal was t i m el y g i v en

. Th e

t ri al co urt fo u n d t h at A p pel l an t was i n d i g en t fo r ap p el lat e p u rp o s es an d ord ered t h at

h e b e fu rn i sh ed a free t ran s cri p t

.

2I s s ues Pres ented

I s s ue One: The tri a l co urt a bus ed i ts di s creti o n i n deny i ng Appel l a nt’s Mo ti o n fo r New Tri a l.

I s s ue Tw o : Appel l a nt w as deni ed effecti v e a s s i s ta nce o f co uns e l

ba s ed o n tri a l co uns el ’s fa i l ure to i nv es ti g a te the l a w a nd fa cts

neces s a ry to pres ent a s peedy tri a l cl ai m ba s ed o n the del a y i n hi s

a rres t fro m the ti m e o f the i ndi ctm ent i n thi s ca us e o n J une 3
, 2 0 0 3
, to hi s a rres t o n Octo ber 2 6, 2 01 3

.

Sta tem ent o f Fa cts

Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at o n Oct o b er 1 6

, 2 0 1 4

, t h e tri al p ro s ecu t o r fi l ed a Br a d y

n o t i ce t h at i n cl u d ed n o t ice t o t h e A p p el l an t t h at t h e co m p l ai nan t an d t wo wi t n es s es

t o l d th e p ro s ecu to r t h at t h ere were ev en t s f r o m t h ei r p as t i n v ol v in g th e al l eg at i on s

m ad e i n 2 0 0 3 t h at t h ey d i d n o t rem em b er. Sp eci fi cal ly th e Br a d y no t ice i n cl u d es t h e

fo l l o w i n g :

• Th e St at e m et wi t h Y e s en i a Nu n ez on 10 / 13 / 1 4 an d d uri n g t hat

m eet in g t h e Co m

p l ai n an t s t at ed t h at s h e d o es n o t rem em b er wh i ch ad u l t s h e t o l d ab o u t th e ab u s e fi rs t

. Sh e d o e s n o t

r e m em b er h er ag es d u ri n g t h e as s au l t s

. Sh e d o es n ot rem e m b e r wh ere t h e De f

en dan t ’ s s ex u al o rg an was wh en h e s ex u al l y

as s au l t ed h er an us

.

• Th e St at e m et wi th M ari s a Nu n ez o n 10 / 1 3 / 1 4 a n d d u r i n g th e

m eet in g t h e Co m

pl ai n an t s t at ed t h at s h e d o es n ot rem em b e r th e CAC i n t erv i ew wh ere s h e s ai d n o th i n g h ap p en ed

.

• Th e St a t e m et wi th An d res N u n ez on 10 / 1 3 / 1 4 an d t h e W i t n es s d oes n o t rem em

ber s eei n g t h e Defen d an t o n to p o f h i s s i s t ers an d
d oes n o t rem em

b er s eei n g t h e Defen d an t i n b ed wi th h i s s i s t ers

.

CR 3 9

.

3Th e t ri al co m m en ced o n Oct o b er 1 6

, 2 0 1 4

. Pri o r t o t ri al

, t he St at e am en d ed t h e

i n d i ct m en t wi t h o u t o b

ject i on

.

Th e St at e’ s fi rs t wi tn es s was Bert h a M art in wh o s t at ed t h at in 2 0 0 3 s he wo rk ed

at M at a In t erm ed iat e i n t h e A l ief In d ep en den t Sch o o l Di s t ri ct teach i n g th e fi ft h an d

s i xt h g r a d e

. S h e s t at ed t hat i n 2 0 0 3 Yes ei a Nu n ez was o n e o f h er st u d en t s

. On e

m o rn i n g, Yes en i a cam e i n t o th e cl as s ro o m an d bro k e d o wn cry i n g an d t o l d t h e

wi t n es s t h at h er s t ep fat h er was s ex u al l y ab u s i n g h er. Th e St at e i l l i ci t ed t h e d et ai l s

o f t he co m

p l ai n an t ’ s i n i t ial o u t cry

. Sh e s tat es t h at h er s t ep fat h er i s s ex u al l y ab u s i n g

h er. 3 R.R. 3 8 Yes en i a was 1 1 o r 1 2 y ears o ld at t h e t i m e o f t h e o ut cry

.

Sh aro n Ki n n ard was t h e St at e’ s s eco n d wi t n es s

. M s

. Ki n n ard was a co u n s el o r

at M at a In t erm ed i at e Sch o o l

. Th e St at e p res en t ed M s. Ki n n ard as a s eco n d o u t cry

wi t n es s

. M s

. Mart i n b ro u g h t Yes en i a Nu n ez t o her o ffi ce. M s

. N u n e z w as cry i n g.

3 RR 5 9

. W i t h o u t o b

ject i o n , M s

. N u n ez t o l d t h e wi t n es s t h at h er s t ep fat h er was

t o u ch i n g h er in a way t h at h e s h o u l d n o t hav e. 3 R.R. 6 4 M s. Ki n n ard t h en rep o rt ed

M s . Nu n ez’ s s t at em en t t o CPS. 3 RR 6 5

Tam m y Het m an i ak

, a fo ren s i c i n t erv i wer em p l o y ed by th e Ch i l d ren ’ s

As s es s m en t Cen ter was t h e t h i rd wi t n es s

. Ms

. Het m an i ak d es cri b ed t h e p u rp o s e an d

p ro ced ure u sed at t he Ch i l d ren ’ s As s es s m en t Cen t er wh en t here i s a rep ort o f ch i ld

ab u se. M s

. Het m an iak i n t erv i ewed Yes en i a Nu nez o n t wo di fferen t o ccas i o n s

. Th e

4wi t n es s s t at ed t h at s h e h ad co n d u c t ed ov er 6 0 0 0 i n t erv i ews of ch i l d ren i nv o l v i n g

s o m e s o rt o f ab u s e. 3 RR 8 8. T h e fi rs t in t erv i ew o f Yes en i a was co n du ct ed o n M ay

2 8

, 2 0 03

. Th e St at e o ffered a p i ct u re o f Yes en i a an d t h e w i t n es s as t h ey ap p eared

d u ri n g t h e fo ren si c i n t erv i ew.

Ov er o b ject i o n , t h e St at e was al l o wed t o p res en t ev i d en ce o f b o t h o f Y es en i a’ s

fo ren s i c i n terv i ews

. Th e fi rs t i nt erv i ew was o n May 1 8

, 2 0 0 3

. Yes en i a to l d h er t h at

h er s t ep fat h er w as fo nd l i n g h er o n h er p ri v at es

. 3 RR 1 1 6. Sh e t o l d t h e wi t n es s t h at

h e was t ou ch i n g h er fro n t p ri v a t e p art s an d h er b ack p ri v at e p art s

. 3 RR 1 1 7.

Yes en i a i d en t i fi ed h er v ag i n a as h er fro n t p art an d h er bu t t as h er b ack p art

. Yes en i a

s t at ed t h at t h e ab u s e s t art ed wh en s h e was 9 o r 1 0 y ears o l d

. Yes en i a in d i cat ed t h at

h er s t ep fat h er was t o u ch i n g h er o v er h er cl o t h i n g . 3 RR 1 1 8

.

Th e s eco n d i n t erv i ew o ccu rred o n May 2 8

, 2 0 0 3

. Bet ween t h e t wo in t erv i ews ,

Yes en i a u n d erwen t a m ed i c a l ex am in at i o n

. Ov er o bject i o n , Yes en i a d i s cl o s es

p en et rat io n t o fro n t g en i t al area an d h er b ack g en i t a l a r ea an d o ral s ex b y t h e

d e f e n d a nt to h er. 3 RR 1 2 2

. Yes en i a s t at ed t h at h er s t ep fat h er p eed o n h er. 3 RR

1 2 5

. Du ri n g bo t h i n t erv i ews , Yes en i a was em o ti o n al an d ap p ears t o b e em b arras s ed

.

On cro s s ex am i n at io n, t h e wi t n es s st at ed t hat s he h a d n o i n d ep en d en t

reco l l ect i o n o f h er in t erv i ew o f Yes en i a b u t rel i ed on h er rev ie w o f t h e v i d eo s to

refres h h er m em o ry

.

5Dep u t y E d wi n Ch ap us eau x , a Harri s Co u n ty Sh eri ff Dep ut y was fo rward ed a

rep o rt i n v o l v i n g a ch il d Yes en i a Nu n ez t o i n v es t i g at e o n May 1 3

, 2 0 0 3

. He co n t act ed

Yes en i a at t h e Ch il dren ’ s A s s es s m en t Cen t er. Th e Dep u ty i n t erv iewed t h e t each er

a t s c ho o l an d t h e s ch o o l co u n sel o r. He wro t e an o ffen s e rep o rt

. Aft er o bs erv i n g

Yes en i a’ s fo ren s i c i n terv i ew an d co n d u ct in g i n t erv i ews fro m t he sch o ol em p l o y ees ,

t h e dep u t y i d en t i fi ed ap p e l l a n t a s a s u s p ect

. Th e wi t n es s s t at ed t h at t h e o ffen s es

o ccu rred at 1 3 32 7 Bas s fo rd Dri v e Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 70 8 3 i n Harri s Co u n t y , Tex as

.

Th e wi t n es s at tem

p t ed t o i n t erv i ew t h e Ap p el l an t

.

Th e wi t n es s s t at ed th at aft er t h e o u t cry , Yes en i a an d h er s i bl i ng s wen t t o l i v e

wi t h her au n t an d u n c l e

. H e d i d n o t k n o w t h ei r rel at i o n to Ap p el l an t o r i f t h ey

i n fl u en ced h er s tat em en ts . 3 RR 1 5 8

.

Th e co m p l ai n an t ’ s b ro t h er An d res Nu n ez, J u ni o r t es t i fi ed

. He i d en t i fi ed h i s

m o th er as Mari a So co rro Al barro w

. In 2 0 03

, hi s m o t h er had a rel at io n s h i p wi th

Ap p el l an t

. 3 R R 1 7 2

. Ap p el l an t was l i v i ng at h i s h ou s e. Th e ho u s e h ad t wo

b ed ro o m s

. Fi v e p eo p l e l i v ed in t h e h o u s e. An d res s lep t i n a b ed wi t h h i s two s i s t ers

.

Th e wi t n es s d es cri b ed t i m es th at Ap p el l an t wo u l d g o in t o h i s b ed ro o om wi t h Yes en i a

an d s hu t t h e d oo r. He wo u l d fo rce An dres t o s t ay i n an o t h er ro o m

. 3 RR 1 9 5

.

W h en h e was 9

, CPS t o o k h im away fro m h i s m o th er an d s en t h i m t o l i v e wi th

h i s au n t an d u ncl e. He n ev er l iv ed wi t h m o t h er ag ai n

.

6On cro s s ex am i n at i on , An d res st at ed t hat En ri q u e J r. Ap p el l an t ’ s s ai d v i s i t ed

t h em an d wen t t o Hi ck s El em en t ary Sch o o l wi th h i m

. E n ri qu e J r. s l ep t o n t h e co u ch

i n t he l i v i n g ro o m

.

Dep u t y Ch ap u seau x w as recal l ed b y t h e Defen s e. Th e w it nes s s tat ed t h at h i s

p ri o r tes t i m o n y

was b as ed o n h i s refres h i ng h i s m em o ry fro m t h e rep o rt rat h er t h an

b as ed o n h i s i n d ep en d en t reco ll ect i o n

. Hi s rep o rt d i d n o t d o cu m en t wh o was l i v i n g

wi t h Ap p el l an t an d t he co m p l ai n an t at t he t i m e o f t h e i n ci d en t

. 4 RR 7

. At s o m e

p o i n t du ri n g t h e o ri g i n al i n ves t i g at i o n, t h e wi t n es s co n t act ed Hi ck s E l e m e n t ary

Sch oo l reg ard i n g t h e Ap p el lan t ’ s s o n E n ri qu e A g u i rre J r. 4 RR 8

. Th e w i t n es s

b el i ev ed t h at En ri q u e Aq u i rre J r. l i v ed wi t h Ap p el lan t at t h e t im e o f t he o ffen s e. Th e

co m p l ai n an t ’ s Au n t cal led t h e p o l i ce. At on e p o i n t E n r i q u e J r. was fo u n d at t h e

el em en t ary sch o o l

. At so m e p o i n t

, En ri qu e J r. was t ak en o u t o f t h e sch o o l an d

d i s ap p eared

.

Yo l an d a Al p o u g h

, an em p l o y ee o f t h e Dep art m e n t o f F a m i l y an d Pro t ect i v e

Serv i ces co n cern i n g h er i n v es t i g at i o n of t he al leg at i on s o f Yes en i a Nu n ez. Th e

wi t n es s refres h h er m em o ry o f h er i n v es ti g at i o n by rev i ewi n g h er rep o rt t hat was in

p o s s es s i o n o f t h e p ro s ecu t o r an d t h e t ap e o f t he fo ren si c i n t erv i ew. 4 RR 1 9.

W i th o u t ob

ject i o n , Ms

. Al p o u g h rep eat ed th e al l eg at i o n s m ad e b y Yes en i a t o h er. 4

R R 2 1

. Aft er s h e rep eat ed t h e s t o ry , Y es en i a was t ran sp o rt ed t o th e Ch i l d ren ’ s

7As s es s m en t Cen t er becau s e s h e s ai d t h at s h e h ad b een s ex u al l y ab us ed an d an

i n v es t i g at i o n h ad t o b e co n d u ct ed

. Th e w i t nes s s tat ed t h at s h e i n t erv i ewed Yes en i a

m o th er wh o di d n ot b el i ev e t h e al l eg at i o n s

. M s. Al p o u g h s tat ed t h at A p p el l an t ’ s so n

was l iv i n g wi t h t h e fam i l y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e al l eg at i o n s

. 4 RR 3 2

. M s. Al p o u g h

s t at ed t h at Yes en i a t o l d her t h a t A p p el l an t t ri ed t o h av e s ex u al as s au l t wi t h h er.

Yes en i a nev er t o l d M s

. Al p o u g h t h at Ap p el l an t en gag ed in o ral s ex on her. 4 RR 3 9.

Dr. Reb ecca Gi rard et

, a m ed i cal d o ct o r an d an as s o ci at e p ro fes s o r i n t h e

d ep art m en t o f p ed i at ri cs t es t i fi ed co n cern i ng h er ex am i n at i o n o f Yes en i a on M ay 2 9,

2 0 0 3

. A co p y o f t h e m ed i cal reco rd s were i nt ro d uced i nt o ev i d en ce. Yes en i a

i n d i cat ed t hat A p pel l an t en gag ed i n v ag i n al sex an d an al s ex

. Th ere i s n o in d i cat i o n

o f o ral s ex

. 4 RR 5 3

. Th e co m p l ai n an t s t at ed t h at Ap p el l an t d i d no t ejacu l at e. Th e

p h y s i cal ex am i n at i on o f Yes en i a l o o k ed n o rm al wi t h n o i n ju ri es o r s carri n g . Th ere

was n o t h i n g i n t h e ex am i n at i o n t h at i n di cat ed t h at Yes en i a h ad b een s ex u al l y

as s au l t ed

. Th e d o ct o r ex p l ai n ed t h at o ft en in ju ri es are n o t v i s i b l e b ecau s e ch i l d ren

d o n o t k n o w h ow t o d es cri b e wh at act u al l y h ap p en ed o r d es cri b e act u al p en et rat i o n.

An i n t act h y m en d oes n o t m ean th at a s ex ual as s au lt d id n o t o c c u r. Dr. Gi rard et

co n cl u d ed th at h er p h y s i cal ex am i n at i o n n ei th er p ro v ed o r d i s p ro v e s ex u al ab u s e. 4

RR 6 2

.

Yes en i a Nu n ez t es t ifi ed t o d es cri b e t h e b as i s o f t h e a l l eg at i o n s ag ai n s t

8Ap p el l an t

. Sh e d i d n ot rem em b er wh en h e m o v ed in wi t h h er fam i l y

. Yes en i a s t at ed

t h at s he l i v ed h er m o t h er, s i s ter b ro t h er an d Ap p el lan t

. Hi s s o n En ri q u e wo u ld

s o m et i m e s t a y w i t h t h em

. Sh e rem em b ered t el l i ng M s. M art i n t h at h er m o t h er’ s

b o y fri en d was t o u ch i n g h er. M s . M art i n t o o k h er t o t h e co u n s el o r’ s o ffi ce an d t o ld

h e r s t o r y

. Yes en i a s t at ed t h at s h e was rel u ct an t t o t el l h er s to ry becau s e s h e wa s

s cared

. A CPS wo rk e r c a m e t o th e s ch o o l an d s he t h en wen t to t h e Ch i l d ren ’ s

As s es s m en t Cen t er.

Yes en i a s t at ed t h at on e n i g h t aft er s h e sh o w ered

, A p p el l an t cam e i nt o h er ro o m

wh i le s h e was in b ed

. Ap p el l an t g o t i n t o b ed wi t h h er. Ap p el l an t n o t w eari n g a s hi rt

an d he was i n h is u n d erwear. Y es en i a s t at ed t h at Ap p el l an t wen t u n der t h e s h eet s an d

h e s t art ed t ou ch in g h er l eg s an d h er t h i g h s wi t h h is h an d s

. 4 RR 10 6 -1 0 8. Ap p el l an t

ei t h er m o v ed h er s h o rt s o r rem o v ed t h em an d beg an t o t o u ch h er p ri vat e p art s

. He

t h en s p read h er l eg s ap art an d p l aced h i s face o n h er v ag i n a an d p laced h i s to n g u e o n

h er v ag i n a. 4 RR 1 1 0 -1 1 1 . Ap p el l an t wo u ld n o t s ay an y t h i ng n o r d i d h e ejacu l at e.

Yes en i a s t at ed t h at th e ab u s e was o n g o i n g an d t h at h e w o u l d co n t i nu o u s l y t o u ch h er.

Th e ab u s e wo u l d o ccu r wi t h h er m o t h er b ro th er an d s i s t er i n t h e h o us e.

Yes en i a s t at ed t hat s h e nev er t o l d h er m ot h er w h at was h ap p en i n g an d at t h e

t i m e o f t h e t ri al

, t h ey d id n o t co m m u n i cat e. Aft er s h e t o l d t h e t each er at sch o o l

, s h e

n ev er wen t h o m e ag ai n

. 4 RR 1 2 0

.

9Yes en i a s t at ed t h at at t h e t i m e o f t he al l eg ed in ci d en t fi v e p e o p l e l i v ed i n a

s m al l h o u s e. At t i m es th ere were s i x p eo p l e st ay i n g at t he h o u se. Her m o t h er d i d n ot

wo rk

. A p p el l an t s u p p o rt ed h er fam i l y

. Yes en i a was co m fo rt ab l e l i v i n g wi t h h er au n t

.

Yes en i a d i d n o t t el l M s

. M art i n ab o u t t h e o ral s ex . On cro s s -ex am i n at i o n, Yes en i a

reco u n ted t h e o ral s ex ex p eri en ce wi t h Ap p el l an t

.

Hea ri ng o n Mo ti o n fo r New Tri a l

On J an u ary 2

, 2 0 1 4

, a heari n g was h el d i n ci d en t t o Ap p el l an t ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al

. Ap p el l an t was n ot p res en t

. Th e Co u rt to o k ju di ci al n o t i ce o f i t s fi l e an d al l o f

i t s co n t en t s

. Th e on ly wi t n es s cal l ed b y Ap p el l an t was h i s t ri al at t orn ey M ik e M o n k s

.

Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at th e ch arg es were fi l ed i n t h i s cau s e on J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 0 3.

Th e ret u rn o n t h e i n d i ct m en t was fi led o n Oct o b er 2 0 , 2 01 3

.

M r. M o n k s s t at ed t h at th e i n d ict m e n t i n d i cat ed th at i t was recei v ed i n t h e

Cl erk ’ s offi ce o n Ju l y 26

, 2 00 3

. M r. M o n k s st at ed t h at t he i n d i ct m en t was ret u rn ed

aft er b ei n g s erv ed o n Oct o b er 26

, 2 0 1 3

. M r. M o n k s s t at ed t h at hi s fi le co n t ai n ed n o

n o t e s o r i n v es t i g at i o n of t h e law i n ci d en t t o Ap p el l an t ’ s co n s t it u t i o n al ri g h t t o a

s p eed y t ri al

. W h en M r. M o n k s fi rs t m et A p p el l an t he di d n o t in q ui re ab o u t h i s

i m m i g rat i o n s t at u s

. 7 RR 1 2 -1 3

. M r. M o nk s s t at ed t h at t h e Ap p el lan t ’ s i m m i g rat i o n

s t at u s was n o t rel ev an t t o t h e d efen s e o f t h e al l eg at i o n s

. 7 RR 1 3

. A p p el lan t t o l d h i m

t h at h e was l i v i ng i n M ex i co an d h i s s o n was l i v in g i n M cAl l en

.

10M r. M o n k s rev i ewed Defen s e Ex h i b i t Nu m b er 1 wh i ch co n t ai n ed a No t i ce o f

Act i o n an I-7 9 7 wh i ch ap pears t o b e fro m t he D ep art m en t o f Ho m el an d Secu ri t y

d at ed Dece m

b er 3

, 2 0 1 2

. T h e d o cu m en t refl ect s Ap p el l an t h ad to ap p ear i n Las

Veg as o n Decem

b er 2 8 , 2 0 1 2, co n cern in g h is ap p l i cat i o n fo r ren ewal o f p erm an en t

res i den cy s t at u s

. T h e l et t er refl ect s t hat h e i s t o b e fi n g erp ri n t ed at t h e m eet i n g

. Th e

fact t h at A p p el l an t was i n co nt act wi t h Ho m el an d Secu ri ty

. An d

, at t h e t i m e o f h i s

arres t

, Ap p el lan t h ad a p erm an en t res i d en ce card

. M r. Mo n ks s tat ed t h at i n o rd er to

b eco m e a p erm an en t res i d en t

, o n e m u s t h av e t h ei r fi ng erp ri n ts s u b m i t t ed fo r rev i ew.

Th e d o cu m en t s i n Defen s e Ex h i b i t Nu m b er 1 in d icat es t h at Ap p el l an t was t o ap p ear

i n Las Veg as t o p i ck up h i s n ew p erm an en t res i d en ce c a r d w h i ch w as i n h i s

p o s s es s i o n at t h e t i m e o f h i s arres t . 7 RR 2 1.

M r. M o n k s b el i ev ed t h at i f t h ere was a warran t fo r h i s arres t

, h e wo u l d n o t h av e

b een is s u ed a p erm an en t res i d en ce card

.

T h e r e a re n o wri tt en n o t es i n d i cat i n g wh ere Ap p el l an t w as l i v in g

. 7 RR 2 5

.

M r. M o n ks fi l e co n t ai n s n o i n fo rm at i o n o f Ap pel l an t ’ s p ri o r res id en ce o r h i s co n t act s

wi t h t h e Un i t ed St at es

. T h e re were no n o t es co n t ai n ed i n M r. M on k s fi l e t h at

i n d i cat es t h at h e ev er i nt erv iewed Ap p el l an t ’ s s o n. 7 RR 27

. M r. M o n k s d i d n o t as k

q u es ti o n s o f Ap p el lan t ’ s s o n co n cern i n g t h e t y p e o f fat h er A p p el l an t w as b ecau s e h e

was afrai d t h at i t m i g h t o p e n t h e d o o r t o ev i den ce t h at Ap p el l an t fl ed t h e co u n t ry

.

11M r. Mo nk s d i d n o t co n d uct an y i n ves t i g at i o n co n cern i n g Ap p el l an t en teri n g t h e

Un i ted St at es o r l i v i n g i n t h e Un i t ed St at es

. An d

, t here was n o i n v es t i g at i o n i n t h e

l aw co n t ai n e d i n h is fi le. 7 RR 3 1

. Mr. M o n ks ad m i t t ed t h at h e co n d u ct ed n o

res earch p ert ai n in g t o Ap p el l an t ’ s Si x t h Am en d m en t ri g h t t o a sp eed y t ri al

. 7 RR 3 3.

Ap p el l an t t o ld M r. M o n k s t h at h e l eft H a r r i s Co u n t y b as ed o n t h e ad v i ce o f

co u ns el

. M r. M o nk s d id n o t in v es t i g at e t h e b as i s fo t h at ad v i ce. M r. M o n k s d i d n ot

i n v es t i g at e Ap p el l an t ’ s co nt act wi t h h i s fam i ly i n t h e Un i ted St at es

. 7 RR 3 6 -3 7

. M r.

M o n ks en t i re fi le was i n t ro d u ced i n t o ev id en ce. M r. M o n k s ad m it t ed t h at h e d i d n ot

i n v es t i g at e t h e law an d fact s i n ci d en t t o Ap p el l an t ’ s Si x t h Am en d m en t Ri g h t t o a

Sp e e d y Tr i al

. 7 RR 4 3

. M r. M on k s d i d n o t read an y law i n ci d en t th e Si x th

A m e n d m en t ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al

. M r. Mo nk s d i d n o t read th e Su p rem e C o u r t ’s

d eci s i o n i n Do g

g et t v. Un i t ed S t a t es

. He d i d n o t read O ’Br i en v. U n i t ed S t a t es

.

Defen s e Ex h i b i t Nu m

b er 1 i n d i cat es t h at A p p el lan t res i d ed i n Hen d ers o n , Nev ad a.

T h e t r i a l co u rt en tered t h e fo ll o wi n g fi n d i n gs o f fact at t h e co n cl u s i o n o f

Ap p el l an t ’ s h eari n g o n M o ti o n fo r New Tri al :

THE COURT: Back o n t h e reco rd . Th e reco rd wi l l fu rt h er refl ect t hat
b as ed o n cred i b l e t es t i m o n y o f t h e Defen d an t ’ s tri al at t o rn ey , M i ch ael

M o n k s , an d h a v i n g p res i d ed o ver t h e t ri al o f t h e D efen dan t th e co u rt

m ak es t h e fo l l owi ng fi n d i n g s :

1

. Th at t h e Defen d an t w as ch arg ed o n J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 0 3

, wi t h th e

o ffen s e o f ag g r a v a ted s ex u al as s au l t of a ch i l d al l eg ed t o h av e b een

12co m

m i t t ed o n o r ab o u t M ay 2 3 rd

, 20 0 3. Co m p lai n an t was a Y-N-o m i tt i ng h er n am e, a ch i l d u nd er 1 4 y ears o f ag e.

2

. Th e co m

p lai n t was fi l ed i n t h e cas e as a n o n-arres t

, t o b e arres ted

cas e, o n Ju n e 5

, 2 0 0 3

, an d a warran t was i s s u ed fo r t h e Defen d an t ’ s

arres t o n J u n e 6, 2 0 0 3

. Th e cas e was in d ict ed o n J u l y 25 t h

, 2 0 0 3

, an d I

g u es s a w arran t was i ss ued
-- a cap ias is s u ed J u l y 2 6 t h

, 2 0 03

, t h e d ay aft er t h e i n d i ct m en t

. It was i s s u ed t o t h e Harri s Co u nt y Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce

an d ex ecu t ed Oct o b er 2 6 t h

, 2 0 1 3

, b y t he Harri s Co u n t y Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce b y p l aci n g t h e Defen d an t i n cu s to d y

. Th e reco rd i s d ev o i d o f h o w th e Defen d an t w as arres ted

, wh ere h e was arres t ed o n t h e op en w arran t o r i f h e w as ar r e s t e d o r tu rn ed h i m s el f i n o r arres ted b y s o m e au t h o ri t y

s o m ewh ere el s e.

3

. Aft er sev eral set t i n g s t h e cas e was s et fo r j u ry t ri al al o n g wi t h a M o t io n to Ad

ju d i cat e Gu i l t h eari n g an d a co m p an i o n cas e, p ro bat i o n

cas e p en d i n g i n co u rt , p o s s es s i o n o f a co nt ro l l ed s u b s t an ce cas e.

4

. On a p l ea o f n ot g u i l t y at t h e t ri al s et t i n g t h e ju ry fo u nd th e Defen d an t g ui l t y an d aft er a pu n i s h m en t h eari n g t h e co u rt as s es s ed

p u n i s h m en t at 3 0 y e a rs co n fi n em en t i n t h e Tex as D ep art m en t o f
Cri m i n al J u s ti ce In s t i t u t i o n al Di v i si o n

.

5

. Th e j u r y h eard t h e cas e-i n -ch ief as wel l as s o m e ch aract er

ev i d en ce p u t o n b y

Defen s e.

6

. Ch aract er ev i d en ce an d fact u al ev i d en ce in t h e fo rm o f th e Defen d an t ’ s s o n , E n r i q u e A g u i rre E l Can tel

, an d t h e Defen d an t ’ s b ro t her, J ai m e Ch av ez A g u i rre, I b el i ev e. Bu t t h en i n t h e t ri al b efo re th e

co u rt J ai m e was n am ed J ai m e Ag ui rre Ch av ez as o pp o s ed t o t h e n am e

o f J ai m e Ch av ez Ag ui rre.

7

. Th e St at e pres en ted p u ni s hm en t ev i d en ce in t h e fo rm o f th e

co m p lai n an t ’s s i st er an d h er i n i t i al s wi l l b e M N t o av o i d g iv i n g h er

n am e o n t h e reco rd t o t h e i n di ct m en t

, wh at ’ s i n th e reco rd

. At t he t i m e

o f th e al leg ed o ffen s e s h e was ap p ro x im at el y a li t t l e bi t o v er 1 4 y ears o f

ag e. Th e St at e o f

f e r s p un i s h m en t ev i d en ce as t o ex t ran eo u s o ffen ses

13al l eg ed ly co m m i t ted b y t h e Defen dan t

.

8

. Bas ed u p on t h e co u rt ’ s r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e ev i den ce ad d u ced at b o t h p h a s e s o f t h e Defen d an t’ s t ri al an d t h e M ot i o n fo r N ew Tri al
h eari n g t h e c o u rt fi n d s t h at b as ed u p o n t h e cred i b l e t es t i m o ny o f

at t o rn ey M i ch ael M o n k s , at t o rn ey M on k s’ d eci s i o n t o n o t rai s e th e

s p eed y t ri al i s s u e pret ri al o r d u ri n g t ri al was b as ed up o n reas o n ab l e t ri al

s t rat eg y

.

9

. At t o rn ey M o nk s ’ t ri al perfo rm an ce i n u s i n g t h e s t rat e g y t o n o t l i ti g at e t he s p eed y t ri al i ss u e, p ret ri al an d fo r t h at m at t er d u ri ng t h e tri al

,
was n ot d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce i n as m u ch as t h e key fact o r i n t h e fo u r
p art Bark er an al y s i s preju d i ce s et o u t -- Bark er an al y s i s fo r p reju d i ce s et

o u t in t h e Bark er v ers us Wi n g o cas e ci t ed b y D efen se co u n sel

. T he

reas o n fo r t h e d el ay n am el y -- s t ri k e th at

. Bark er v ers u s W i n go , n am el y

. Th e reas o n fo r t h e d el ay rel at i v e t o t h e i s s u e o f p res u m p t i v e p reju di ce d u e t o th e d el ay fro m t h e t i m e o f t he i n d i ct m en t t o t h e t i m e o f th e Defen d an t ’ s arres t was d u e b as ed u p o n M r. M o n k s ’ cred i b l e t es t i m o n y
t h at t h e D efen dan t left t h e ju ri s d i ct io n t o a v o i d arres t an d p ro s ecu t i o n fo r t he o ffen s es co n t ai n ed i n t h e i nd i ct m en t i n Cau se Nu m b er 0 8 73 1 1 2

-- s t ri k e t hat
-- 09 5 0 9 86

, an d fo r t h e p en d i n g cas e i n Cau se Nu m b er 0 8 7 3 1 1 2

, p os s es s i o n o f a co n t ro l l ed s u b s t an ce, p ro b at i o n v i o l at io n cas e
t h at was t h en p en di n g

.

1 0

. Th e co u rt fi n d s th at fro m t h e reco rd i n t h e t ri al o f t h e cau s e, th e

ev i d en ce d ed uced at t h e M o t i o n fo r New T ri al as t o t he o t h er t w o Bark er fact o rs , th e D efen dan t d i d as s ert h i s ri g h t to a s p eed y t ri al aft er h i s arres t

an d t h e D e f

e n d an t was t ri ed o n t h e m eri t s an d h as n ot s h o wn t h at th e d el ay i n g o i n g t o tri al in t h i s cas e p reju d i ce d t h e Defen d an t ; al t h o u g h

,
a d el ay o f 1 0 y ears is p res u m p t i v el y an d was p res u m

p t i v el y p reju d i ci al

.

1 1

. Du ri n g t he t ri al A t t o r n ey M o n k s cal l ed t h e Defen d an t’ s s o n , En ri qu e Ag u irre El Can t el

, t o t es t i fy as t o t h e ch aract er o f t h e Defen d an t

as wel l as s o m e d et ai ls as t o t h e t i m efram e wh en t h i s wi t n es s l i v ed w i t h

t h e De f e n d a n t -- wi th t h e co m pl ai nan t an d co m

p lai n an t ’ s fam i l y

m em b ers

. Th e co u rt f

i n d s t h at at to rn ey M o nk s ’ s t rat eg y of n o t d ev el o p i n g f

u r t h er t h i s l i n e o f i n q u i ry was a s t rat eg i c d eci s i o n n ot t o

14d el v e fu rt h er i n t o t h e li v i n g arran gem en t s o r o t h er d et ai l s as t o wh y

--

as t o wh y t h e wi t n e s s an d t h e Defen d an t left s h o rt l y aft er -- wel l

, l eft
wh en t h ey l eft

. T h i s deci s i o n w as m ad e s o as n o t t o o p en t h e d oo r t o fu rt h er cro s s-ex am in e b y t h e St at e as t o wh en t h e Defen dan t m o ved o u t

o f t h e h ou s e an d wh y

h e wen t t o ab s co n d.

1 2

. Bas ed o n th e cred i b l e t es ti m o n y o f at t o rn ey Mo n k s , an d th e

co u rt ’ s reco l lect i o n o f t h e t ri al t he co u rt fi n ds th at t h e ev id en ce ad d u ced

at t h e M o t i o n fo r New Tri al h eari n g d o es n o t es t ab l i s h t hat h ad at t o rn ey M o n k s l i ti g at ed th e s peed y t ri al i s s ues t hat t h e Defen d an t wo u l d p rev ai l

o n i t s ap p eal o f t h e c o u rt ’ s ru l i n g as t o an y den i al o f t he M o t io n t o Di s m i s s t h e i n d i ct m en t fo r l ack o f a s peed y tri al an d as s u ch a vi o l at i o n

o f t h e Tex as an d U. S. Co n s t i tu t i o n al Pro v i s i o n s fo r s p eed y tri al u nd er
t h e 1 4 t h Am en dm en t t o th e U.S. Co n s t it u t i o n an d t h e ap p l i cab l e Tex as Co n st i tu t i o n al Pro v i s i on s

.

1 3

. Th e co u rt fi n d s t h at o nce arres t ed t h e Defen d an t ex erci s ed h i s ri gh t t o a s peed y t ri al an d an y d el ay b et ween t h e i n d i ct m en t an d h i s

u l t i m at e arres t w as d u e l arg el y t o th e Defen d an t ’ s ab s en t i n g h i m s e l f
fro m t h e co u n try

.

1 4

. Bas ed o n t h e cred i b l e t es t i m o n y of at to rn ey M o n k s, t h e co u rt fi nd s th at at t orn ey M o nk s h ad n o k n o wl ed ge o r i n fo rm at i o n fro m th e Defen d an t o r h is fam il y t h at t h e Defen d an t was l i v i ng i n t he U. S. at an y
t i m e fro m t h e d at e o f t h e i n d i ct m en t t o t h e t i m e o f a res t

.

1 5

. Bas ed u po n t h e cred i bl e t es t i m o n y o f at t o rn ey M o n k s , t he co u rt fi nd s t h at at t o r n ey Mo n k s was n o t m ad e aware t h at t h e Defen d an t h ad

s et o u t t he ci ty o f H en d ers o n , Nev ad a, as h i s p l ace o f res i d en ce w h en he

u s ed a Fo rm I-9 0 an d ap p l i ed fo r a rep l acem en t o f an al i en reg is trat i o n card o n 1 1-2 6 -2 0 1 2

, u s in g t h e n am e Eu g en e -- no , En ri q ue Ag u i rre Ch av ez, a s s et ou t i n Defen d an t ’ s Ex h i b i t Nu m b er 1 ad du ced at th e M o t io n fo r New Tri al h eari n g

.

1 6

. Bas ed u po n t h e cred i b l e t es t i m o n y of at t o rn ey M o n k s , t he co u rt fi nd s t hat Defe n d a n t

, wh i l e aware o f t h e p ret ri al

, t h at t h e Defen d an t ’ s

s o n wh o l i v ed i n McAl l en , Tex as , w a s u n a w are as t o wh et h er th e

15Defen d an t l i ved i n Tex as , i n N ev ad a o r i n M ex i co ; n or was h e aware

t h at t h e D e f

e n d an t reen t ered t h e co u n t ry a n u m b er o f t i m es o v er th e
p eri o d
-- 1 0 y ear p eri o d fro m 2 0 0 3 t o 2 0 1 3 t o v i s i t h i s s o n i n M cAl l en , Tex as , i f h e d i d.

1 7

. Th e co u rt

, b as ed u p o n t he c o u r t ’ s reco ll ect i on o f t h e t ri al an d

at t o rn ey M o n ks ’ c r e d i b l e t es t i m o n y , M o n ks ’ fai l u re t o cal l ad d i t i o nal
ch aract er wi t n es s es at t h e g u i l t o r i n n o cen ce s t ag e w a s a r e a s o n ab l e

s t rat eg i c d eci s i o n s o as t o n o t t o ru n t he ri s k o f o p en i n g t h e d o o r t o m o re

ex t ran eo u s o ffen s es th at t h e St at e h ad n o t i ced t o Defen s e co u n sel b y

m ean s o f p ret ri al m o ti o n s fi l ed b y t h e St at e.

1 8

. Th e co u rt fi n d s t h at t h e fact s i n Do g g et t v ers u s Un it ed St at es ci ted
b y Defen s e co u n s el

, t h e co u rt fi n d s th at t h o s e fact s are d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e fro m t h e fact s i n t h i s cas e i n t h at t h e d el ay i n arres ti n g t h e Defen d an t i n
t h i s cas e was n o t d u e t o n eg l i g en ce o n t h e p art o f t h e St at e. Th e o n l y

ev i d en ce o f an y p o t en t i al n eg l i gen ce was t h e Defen d an t recei v i n g a

co p y o f h i s al i en reg i s t rat i o n card

, w h i ch h e ap pl i ed fo r an d ap p aren t l y recei v ed o r, at l eas t

, h e w as g iv en n o t ice t hat i t was g o i n g t o b e i n th e

m ai l

, wh i ch i n vo l v ed o n e v i s i t t o t h e H o m el an d Secu ri t y o ffi ce i n Las Veg as , I b el i ev e, an d t h e t ak i n g -- an d pro b ab l e t ak i n g o f fi n g erp ri n t s at

t h at t i m e. St at e’ s Ex h i b i t Nu m b er 1 refl ect s t h e n am e o f t h e ap p l i can t as En ri q u e Ag u i rre Ch av ez, wh i ch i s d ifferen t fro m an y o rd er o f nam es fro m t h e n am e i n t h e in d i ct m en t o f En ri q u e Ch av ez Ag u i rre. T h at is th e

s i n g l e b i t o f ev id en ce in fro n t o f t he co u rt co n cern i n g an y po s si bl e

n eg l ig en ce b y

t h e St at e. Gi v en t h e fact t h at at t orn ey M o n k s h ad i n h i s
p o s s es si o n i n fo rm at i o n t h at t h e Defen d an t v ol u n t ari l y ab s en t ed h i m s el f,

at t o rn ey M o nk s ’ deci s io n n o t t o p u rs u e a s p eed y t ri al d i s m i s s a l a c t i o n

was o n e b as ed o n t ri al s trat eg y

.

1 9

. Th e reco rd b efo re th e co u rt i s dev o id o f an y fact s t hat d em on s trat e b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev id en ce t hat at to rn ey M o n k s’ rep res en t at i o n fel l b el o w an o b

ject i v e s t an d ard o f reas o n ab l en es s

. A n d th a t b u t f o r
at t o rn ey M o n ks ’ u n pro fes s i o n al erro rs as t o i n v es t i gat i ng t h e cas e,

r e s e arch i n g t h e l aw, t h e o u t co m e o f t h e ju ry t ri al wo u l d h av e b e e n d i fferen t or t h e o u t co m e o f t h e at tem pt ed o r act ual fi l in g o f t h e M o t i o n
t o Di s m i s s fo r W an t o f Sp eed y Tri al wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t

.

162 0

. Bas ed u p on t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s reco l l ect i on o f t h e tri al o f th e cau s e

an d h av i n g rev i ewed Defen d an t ’ s Ex h i bi t s 1

, 2 an d 2 -A ad m i t t ed at th e M o t io n fo r New Tri al h eari n g , co n s i d eri n g D efen dan t 's m em o ran du m o f
l aw fi l ed

, t he M o ti o n fo r New Tri al o n i t s face, arg u m en t s o f c o u n s e l

, t h e co u rt fi n d s t h at at t o rn ey M o n k s d i d co n d u ct i nv es t i g at io n o f t h e fact s

an d wh i l e n o t res earch i n g t h e cas e l aw, s p eci fi cal l y , rel at i v e t o s p eed y
t ri al i s s u es h e d i d reco g n i ze t h e k ey Bark er fact o r as t o t h e reas o n fo r th e d el ay s u ch t h at h e d i d ren d er effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n sel

.

2 1

. Acco rd i ng l y , b as ed o n t he t o t al i t y an d th e rep res en t at io n b y Mr.

M o n k s an d t h e p art i cu lar ci rcu m s t an ces i n t h e tri al of t h i s cas e t h e co u rt fi nd s th at at t o rn ey M i ch ael Mo n k s r en d ered reas on ab l y effect iv e

as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el an d acco rd i n g l y t h e M o ti o n fo r New Tri al i s d en i ed . Th at co n cl u des t h i s h eari ng . 7 RR 6 -1 3

Ap p el l an t o b

ject ed t o t h e fi n d i n g s en tered b y t h e Co u rt . 7 RR 1 3

.

Arg um ent a nd Autho ri ti es i n Suppo rt o f I ss ues One a nd Tw o

Th e t r i al co u rt ab u sed i t s d i s cret i o n i n d en y i n g A pp el l an t ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al

. Th e Co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e t ri al co un s el fai l ed t o res earch t h e cas e l aw rel at i v e to

Ap p el l an t ’ s co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al

. Th e t ri al co u rt al s o fo un d t h at t ri al

co u ns el was n o t aware o f t h e fact s t h at Ap pel l an t res id ed i n Hen d ers o n , Nev ad a an d

h ad ap p l i ed fo r an d ren ew hi s perm an en t res i den ce wi t h t h e Dep art m en t o f Ho m el an d

Secu ri t y

. Th u s , tri al co u n s el fai l ed t o i n ves t i g at e t h e l aw n eces s ary t o p res en t a cl ai m

t h at Ap p e l l a n t ’s r i g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al was ab ro g at ed

. Th e es s en ce o f a s i x th

am en d m en t ri g h t t o effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f c o u n s e l i s b as ed o n t ri al co u n sel ’ s

i n v es t i g at i o n o f t h e l aw an d fact s n eces s ary t o p res en t a d efen s e. In ad di t io n t o t h e

17f

a c t u al al l eg at i o n s p res en t ed

, t ri al co u n s el was ret ai n ed in 2 0 1 3 u p o n Ap pel l an t ’s

arres t t o d efen d an al l eg at i o n o f ag g rav at ed s ex u al as s au l t o f a ch i l d

.

I neffecti v e As s i s ta nce o f Co uns el

T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T e x a s C o n s t i t

u t i o n s g u a

r a n t e e a l l p e r s o n s t

h e r i g h t t o

c o u n s e l d u r i n g a n y c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g

. T h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l i s t h e r i g h t t o t

h e e f f e c t i v e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l

. M c M a n n v

. R i c h a r

d s o n , 3 9 7 U

. S

. 7 5 9

, 7 7 1 n

. 1 4

, 9 0 S

. C t

. 1 4 4 1

,

1 4 4 9 n

. 1 4

, 2 5 L

. E d

. 2 d 7 6 3 ( 1 9 7 0 )

. C l a i m s o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a

n c e o f c o u

n s e l a r e

e va l u a t e d u n d e r t h e t e s t p r o m

u l g a t e d i n S t r i c k l a n d v

. W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 668, 104

S

. C t

. 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 L

. E d 2 d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 )

, w h i c h h e l d t h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o u

n s e l ’ s a s s i s t a

n c e

i s t o b e e v a l u a

t e d a g a i n s t

t h e b a c k d r o p o f t h e r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t

h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t ’ s

p u r pose in m a

n d a t i n g e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l

, w h i c h i s t o e n s u

r e a f a i r t r i a l

. S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6

U

. S

. a t 6 8 7

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. a

t 2 0 6 4

. F i r s t

, a

n a c c u s e d m

u s t p r o v e t

h a t c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e

w a s d e f i c i e n t

, w h i c h r e q u i r e s s h o w i n g t

h a t c o u n s e l m a d e e r

r o r s s o s e r i o u s t

h a t c o u n s e l

w a s n o t f u n c t i o n i n g a s t

h e “ c o u n s e l ” g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

. S e c o n d

, t

h e

a c c u s e d m

u s t s h o w t

h a t c o u n s e l ’ s d e f i c i e n c y p r e

j u d i c e d t h e d e f e nse , w h i c h r e q u i r e s

s h o w i n g t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r s d e p r i v e d t

h e d e f e n d a n t o f a f a i r t r i a l : t h a t i s , a t r i a l w h o s e

r e s u l t i s r e l i a

b l e

. I d

. I n r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a

n c e , t h e c o u r t m u s t m a k e

e v e r y e f f o r t t o a v o i d h i n d s i g h t a

n d e v a l u a t e t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s c o n d

u c t f r o m c o u n s e l ’ s

p e r s p e c t i v e a

t t he tim e o f h i s r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n

. S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a

t 6 9 0

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. a

t

182 0 6 6

. T h

u s , t o p r e v a i l o n a c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a

n c e o f c o u n s e l

, t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t

o v e r c o m e t

h e s t r o n g p r e s u

m p t i o n t h a t

, u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s c o n d

u c t

m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d s o u

n d t r i a l s t r a t e g y

. I d

. T o o v e r c o m e t

h i s p r e s u m p t i o n , a c o n v i c t e d

d e f e n d a n t m u s t i d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i c u l a r a c t s o r o m

i s s i o n s t h a t h e a l l e g e s a

r e n o t t h e r e s u l t

of r e a s o n a

b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l j u d g m e n t

. I

d

. T h e c o u

r t m u s t t h e n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t he

id e n t i f i e d a c t s o r o m

i s s i o n s f e l l o u t s i d e t

h e w i d e r a

n g e o f p r o f

e s s i o n a l l y c om

pe te n t

a s s i s t a n c e

. I d

.

W h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o u n s e l w a s e f

f e c t i v e “ m u s t b e d e t e r

m ine d u p o n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h i n d i v i d

u a l c a s e

. ” E

x p a rte R abo r

n , 6 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 2

,

6 0 5 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A

p p

. 1 9 8 3 )

. G e n e r a l l y , t

h e c o u r t m u s t v i e w t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e

a s a w h o l e

. T h u s , e v e n t h o u g h n o s i n g l e i n s t a

n c e o r e r r or m a y be suf

f i c i e n t s t a n d i n g

a l o n e t o c o n s t i t

u t e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a

n c e o f c o u

n s e l

, s e v e r a l o r m

u l t i p l e e r r o r s m a y

“ c o m p e l s u c h a h o l d i n g

. ” E

x p a r t e W e l b o r n , 7 8 5 S

. W

. 2 d 3 9 1

, 396 ( T e x

. C r im

. A p p

.

1 9 9 0 )

.

Am o n g co u n s el ’ s d ut i es i s t h at o f m ak i n g an i n d ep en den t i nv es t ig at io n o f t h e

fact s o f h i s cl i en t ’ s cas e. Ex p a r t e Ewi ng
, 5 7 0 S.W .2 d 9 4 1, 9 4 7 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p.

1 9 7 8 ). Th e Co u rt o f Cri m i nal Ap p eal s h as s tat ed :

It i s fu n d am en t al t h at an at t o rn ey m u s t h av e a fi rm co m

m an d o f th e fact s

o f t h e cas e as wel l as t h e l aw b efo re h e can ren der reas o n ab l y effect iv e

as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el

. [ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ] A nat u ral co ns eq u en ce of t h i s

19n o t i on i s th at co u n s el al s o h as a res p o n si b i l i t y t o s eek o u t an d in t erv i ew

p o t en t i al wi t n es s es an d f a i l u re t o d o s o is t o b e i n effect iv e, i f n o t i n co m p et en t

, wh ere t he res u l t i s th at an y v i ab l e d efen s e av ai l ab le to th e

accu s ed i s n o t ad v an ced

.

Ex p a rt e Li l l

y, 6 5 6 S.W .2 d 4 9 0 (Tex . Cri m

. Ap p. 1 9 8 3 ).

In ad d i t io n t o h i s d ut y t o en gag e i n a reas o n ab l e i n v es ti g at i o n o f t h e l aw an d

t h e fact s i m

p act i n g h i s cl i en t ’ s cas e, t ri al co u ns el h as a d u t y t o “ p res en t al l av ai l ab l e

ev i d en ce an d arg u m en t s t o s u p p o rt t h e d efen s e o f h i s cl i en t

. ” Ja cks o n v. S ta t e , 8 5 7

S.W .2 d 6 7 8

, 6 8 3 (Tex

. Ap p .– Ho u s t o n [1 4 t h Di s t .]

, 19 9 3 ). T r i al co u n s el al s o h as a

d u t y t o s u b

ject t h e St at e’ s cas e t o t h e cru ci b l e o f ad v ers ari al t es t i n g an d m ay n o t t ak e

i t u p o n h i m s el f t o p l ay t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s ro l e b y as su m i n g t hat ev i d en ce th at is cl earl y

p reju d i ci al an d y et s u b

ject t o ex cl u s io n i s ad m i s s i b l e. See R od r ig u ez v. Y

o un g , 9 0 6

F.2 d 11 5 3

, 1 1 6 1 (7 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ Cri m i n al d efen se l awy ers s h ou l d n o t p re e m pt j u d g es

b y m a k i n g t h ei r o wn n eg at iv e ru l i n gs o n cl o s e m ot i o n s co n cern i ng cru ci a l

t es t i m o ny .”).

St rat eg i c ch o i ces m ad e aft er a t h o ro u g h i n v es t i g at i o n o f t h e law an d fact s

rel ev an t t o pl au s i b l e o p t io n s are v i rt u al l y un ch a l l en geab l e u n d er i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el cl ai m s

. Ex p a r t e Ku n kl e , 8 5 2 S.W .2 d 4 9 9

, 5 0 5 (Tex

. Cri m

.

Ap p .), cer t

. d

en i ed

, Ku nkl e v. S t a t e , 1 1 4 S.Ct

. 1 22

, 1 26 L.Ed .2 d 8 7 (1 9 9 3 ). H o wev er,

s t rat eg i c ch o i ces m ad e aft er a l es s th an co m p let e in v es ti g at i o n are reas o n ab l e o n l y to

20t h e e x t en t t h at “ reas o n ab l e p ro fes s i o n al ju d g m en t s s u p p o rt t h e l i m i t at i o n s o n

i n v es t i g at i o n

. Id

. at 5 0 5

.

T h e S u p rem e Co u rt has m ad e cl ear t h at a rev i ewi n g co u rt ’ s “ p ri n c i p a l

co n cern ” i s n o t wh et h er co u n sel ’ s co n d uct was s t rat e g i c , “ b u t rat h er wh et h er t h e

i n v es t i g at i o n su p po rt i n g co un s el ’ s d e c i s i o n

. .. wa s it s el f r ea s o n ab l e [b ecau s e]

S t r i ckl a nd d o es n o t es t ab li s h t h at a cu rs ory i n v es t i g at i on au t om at i cal ly ju s t i fi es a

t act ical deci s io n ...” W

i g g i n s v. S mi t h

, 1 23 S.Ct

. 2 5 5 7

, 2 5 3 6 -2 5 38 (2 0 0 3 ) (em p h as i s

i n o ri g i n a l )

. S e e a l

s o Lewi s v. Dr et

ke

, 3 55 F.3 d 3 6 4

, 3 6 8 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 03 )(em p h as i s

ad d ed ) (“ It i s ax i o m at ic
-- p art icu l arl y s in ce W i g g i n s

– t h a t s u c h a deci s i o n ca n n ot

b e cr ed i t ed a s ca l cu l a t ed t a ct i cs o r s t r a teg y u n l es s i t gr o un d

ed in su f f i ci en t f a ct s
,

res u l ti n g i n t u rn fro m an in v es t i g at i o n t hat i s at l eas t ad eq u at e fo r t h at p u rp o s e.”);

Mo o r e v. Jo h n s o n , 1 9 4 F.3 d 5 8 6

, 6 0 4 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ Th e Co u rt i s

... n o t req u i red to

co n do n e u nreas o n ab l e d eci s i o n s p arad i n g u n d er t h e um b re l l a o f s trat eg y , o r to

fab ri cat e t act i cal d eci s i o n s o n beh al f o f co u ns el wh en i t ap p ears o n t h e face o f t h e

reco rd t h at co u n s el m ad e n o s t rat eg i c d eci s i on at al l .”).

Tri al co u ns el ’ s fai l u re t o en g ag e i n t h e fu l l p ret ri al l eg al an d fact u al

i n v es t i g at i o n t h a t w o ul d h av e res u l t ed i n t h e ex cl u s i o n o f cri ti cal ev i d en ce was

o b ject i vel y d efi ci en t

. S

ee S a n d er s v. S t a t e , 7 1 5 S.W .2 d 7 71

, 7 7 5 (Tex

. Ap p .– Ty l er,

1 9 8 6 ) (fai l ure to i n v e s t i g a t e fact s an d ci rcu m s tan ces o f co n fes s io n an d t o s u p p res s

21co n fes s i o n was d efi ci en t co n du ct ); Do l es v. St a t e , 87 6 S.W .2 d 7 41

, 7 4 6 (Tex

. Ap p

. –

Ty l er, 19 8 9) (fai lu re t o o bject t o ex t ran eo u s o ffen s es was o b ject iv el y d efi ci en t

co n du ct ).

In Ba n ks v. S t a t e , 8 1 9 S.W .2 d 6 7 6

, 6 8 2 (Tex

. Ap p .– San An to n i o 1 9 9 1

, p et

.

ref'd ), t h e Co u rt fo un d i n e ffect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el becau s e o f tri al co u n sel ’ s

fai l u re t o b e fam i l i ar wi t h t he l aw ap p l i cab l e t o t he cas e. Th e Co u rt ap t l y n ot ed t h at

“ [c] o u ns el h as a d u ty t o b ri n g t o b ear s uch s k i l l an d kn o wl ed g e as wi l l ren d er t h e t ri al

a ‘ rel i ab l e ad vers ari al t es t i n g p ro ces s .’ ” Id

. (q u o t i ng S t r i ckl a nd v. W a s hi n g t o n , 4 6 6

U.S.at 6 8 8

.

In E x p a r t e Y ba r r a , 6 2 9 S.W .2 d 9 4 3

, 9 4 9 n

. 1 5 (Tex

. Cri m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 2 ), a

g en eral fai l u re t o o bject co n t ri b u t ed t o t h e Co u rt ’ s fi n di n g o f i n effect iv e as s i s t an ce

o f c o u n s e l

. Ad d i t io n al l y , t h e l o d g i n g o f t h e wro n g o b ject i o n on o t h er occas i on s

co n tri b u t ed t o t h e fi n d i n g

. Id

. at 9 5 1 n .2 5. In Ex p a r t e W el b o r n , 78 5 S.W .2 d 3 9 1,

3 9 2 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 99 0 ), a fai l u re t o o b ject t o two i n s tan ces o f h ears ay an d a

fai l u re t o o b

ject t o a n e x t r a n e o u s o ffen se co n s t i t ut ed t hree of s i x reas o n s t h at t h e

Co u rt fo u n d co n s ti t u t ed i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce of co u n s el

. In res p o ns e to th e cl ai m

t h at t here was n o ob

ject i o n b ecau s e t h e ex t ran eo us o ffen s e m i g h t h av e b een

ad m i s s i b l e as res g es t ae, t h e Co u rt fi rm l y n o t ed :

Th e po s s i b i l it y t h at t h e s t at em en t was ad m i s s i b l e u n d er s o m e t h eo ry o f

22l aw sh ou l d n ot al l ev i at e co u n s el ’ s b u rd en t o p ut t h e St at e’ s cas e t o t hat

“ ad v ers ari al tes ti n g p ro ces s ” co n t em p lat ed b y t h e S tr i ckl a n d

s t an d ard

. By fai l i ng to o bject

, co un s el i n s u red t h at n o s u ch t es t i ng pro ces s t o o k

p l ace.

W el b o r n ,7 8 5 S.W .2 d at 3 9 5

.

Ad d it i on al l y , t h e Co urt i n W el b o rn n ot ed t h at s o m e cro ss -ex am i n at i o n

ev i d en ced “ t h at co u n s el was co n fu sed as t o t h e ap p l i cab l e l aw.” Id

. at 3 9 4. Here, as

i n W e l b o r n , th e reco rd wo u ld p l ai n l y in d icat e th at Defen d an t ’ s co un s el was

u n fam il i ar w i t h bas ic ru l es of ev i d en ce an d t h e ru l es reg ard in g h o w t o p res erv e erro r.

Th e reco rd fu rt h er refl ect t h at co u n s el was wo efu l ly u np rep ared t o d eal co m p et en t l y

wi t h th e fact s o f t h e cas e, b o t h b ecau s e of in s u ffi ci en t p ret ri al in v e s t i g a t i o n an d

b ecau s e o f h i s fai l u re t o s u ffi ci en t l y p rep are t o d eal wi t h th e fact s t h at h e d i d k n o w.

T h e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h at t ri al co u n s el fai l ed t o fam i l i ari ze h i m s el f wi t h t h e l aw

n eces s ary t o p res en t a s p eed y t ri al cl ai m wh i ch preju d ice Ap p el lan t

. Ap p el l an t

as s ert s th at b as ed on t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed

, n o t ri al s ho u ld ev er h av e b een h el d an d

t h e ch arg es ag ai n s t h im

s h o u l d h av e b een d i s m i s s ed

.

La w Perta i ni ng to Speedy Tri a l

Th e ri g ht t o a sp eed y t ri al i s g u aran t eed b y t h e Si x t h Am en d m en t an d ap p li es

t o s t at e cr im ina l pr oc e e di ng s t h ro u g h t h e Fo u rt een t h Am en d m en t

. U.S. Co n s t

. am en d.

VI; Kl o p f er v. No r t h Ca ro l i na , 38 6 U.S. 21 3

, 2 2 3 -2 6 (1 9 6 7). A vi o l at i o n o f t h e

23s p eed y t ri al ri g h t, i f fo u n d

, req u i res d i s m i s sal o f t h e i n d i ct m en t

. S ee S t r u nk v. Un i t ed

S t a t es , 4 12 U.S. 4 3 4

, 4 3 9 -4 0 (1 9 7 3). In Ba r ker v. W i ng o , 4 0 7 U.S. 5 1 4 (1 97 2 )

, t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt p res cri bed s ev eral fact o rs t o b e co ns i d ered wh en ev al u at in g a s p eed y

t ri al cl ai m :

(1 ) t h e l en g t h o f t h e d el ay ,

(2 ) t h e reas on fo r t h e d el ay ,

(3 ) t h e d efen d an t 's as s ert i o n o f h i s ri gh t t o s p eed y t ri al , an d

(4 ) p reju d i ce t o t h e d efen d an t

.

Ba r ker

, 4 0 7 U.S. at 5 3 0.

A. Leng th o

f t he d el a y

Th e fi rs t Ba r

ker fact o r, t h e l en g t h o f t h e d el ay , co ns i s t s of a t wo -p art i n q u i ry

.

Fi rs t

, t h e d el ay

m u s t b e ex t en s i v e en o u g h t o g i v e ri s e t o a p res u m p t i o n o f p reju d i ce

t h at tri g g ers ex am i n at io n o f t h e r e m a i n i n g Ba r ker fact o rs

. S

ee Do g g et t v. Un i t ed

S t a t es , 5 0 5 U.S. 6 4 7

, 6 5 1 -5 2 (1 9 9 2 ); s ee a l s o Ba r ker

, 4 0 7 U.S. at 5 3 0

- 3 1

. As t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt h as o b s erv ed

, co u rt s g en eral l y v iew a d el ay of ap pro x i m at el y o n e y ear

a s s uffi ci en t t o req u i re a fu l l Ba r ker an al y s is

. Do g

get t

, 5 05 U.S. at 6 5 2

. T h i s i s t h e

ru l e i n t h e Fi ft h Ci rcu i t

. Un i t ed S t a t es v. S er n a -Vi ll a r r ea l

, 35 2 F.3 d 22 5

, 23 0 (5 t h Ci r.

2 0 0 3 ) (ci t i n g Un i t ed

S t a t es v. Ber

gf el d

, 2 8 0 F.3 d 4 8 6, 4 8 8 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ).

24Un d e r T e x a s l aw, th ere i s n o p reci se t i m e p eri o d t hat t ri g g ers t he Ba r ker

an al y s i s. Ho wev er, t he Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap peal s h as h el d t h at wh i le a d el ay o f fo u r

m o nt h s i s n o t s u ffi ci en t

, a s ev en t een -m o n th del ay i s

. Ca n t u v. S t a te

, 2 5 3 S.W .3 d 2 7 3,

2 8 1 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p

. 2 00 8 ) (ci t i n g Pet e v. S ta t e , 5 0 1 S.W .2 d 6 8 3, 6 8 7 (Tex . Cri m

.

Ap p

. 1 9 7 3 ) (“ Ap p el l an t herei n was t ri ed [fo r rap e] ap p ro xi m at el y fo u r m o n t h s aft er

h e was b en ch warran ted fro m t h e Tex as Dep art m en t o f Co rrect i o n s

. It is o u r o p i n i o n

t h at t h is s ho rt p eri o d o f t i m e c o u l d in n o way b e co n s t ru ed as ‘ pres u m p t i v el y

p reju d i ci al

. ’ ”); P h i l li

p s v. S t a t e , 6 5 0 S.W .2 d 3 9 6

, 3 9 9 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 8 3 )

(“ Al t h ou g h t here i s n o preci se l en g t h o f d el ay wh i ch i rrefu t ab l y co n stitute s a vi o l at i o n

o f t h e ri g h t t o a sp eed y t ri al i n al l cas es , . . . a s ev en t een m o n t h d el ay is s u ffi ci en t to

rai s e t h e i s s u e.”)

. T e x as co u rt s g en eral l y ho l d t h at d ep en d i n g o n t h e n at ure o f t h e

ch arg es , a p o s t -accu s at i o n d el ay o f ab o u t o n e y ear i s “ p res u m p tive l y p reju d i ci al .” See

Or a nd v. St a t e , 2 54 S.W .3 d 5 6 0

, 5 6 6 (Tex

. Ap p.— Fo rt W o rt h 20 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g

Do g g et t

, 5 05 U.S. at 6 5 2 ).

On ce t h e accu s ed s h o ws t h at t h e i nt erv al b et w een t h e accu s at i o n an d t ri al h as

cro s s ed t h e t h res h o l d di v i d i n g “ o rd in ary ” fro m “ p res u m p t i v el y p reju di ci al ” d el ay ,

u n d er t he l en g t h -o f-d el ay fact o r, t h e co urt m u st th en co n s id er t he ex t en t to wh i ch t h at

d el ay s t ret ch es b ey o n d t h e b are m i n i m u m n eed ed t o tri g ger ju d i ci al ex am i n at i o n o f

t h e cl ai m

. Za mo r a n o v. S ta t e , 84 S.W .3 d 6 4 3

, 6 49 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o t i n g

25Do g

g et t

, 5 05 U.S. at 6 5 2 , 1 1 2 S. Ct

. at 2 6 9 0 -9 1 ). Th i s s eco n d i n q ui ry i s s i g n i fi can t

t o th e s p eed y t ri al an al y si s b ecau s e t h e “ pr e s u m p t i o n t h at p ret ri al del ay h as

p reju d i ced t h e accu s ed i n t en s i fi es o v er t i m e.” Id

. ; Or a n d

, 2 54 S.W .3 d at 5 66

.

In t h e p res en t ca s e, t h e m o re t h an t en y ear d el ay b et ween Defen d an t ’ s

i n d i ct m en t an d h i s arres t i s am p l y s u ffi ci en t t o t ri g g er a s p eed y tri al an al y s i s u n d e r

i n q u i ry

. S ee, e.g

. , Do g

get t

, 5 0 5 U.S. at 6 5 7 -5 8

, 1 1 2 S. Ct

. at 2 69 3 -9 4 (g ran t i n g rel i ef

b as ed o n an ei gh t -an d -a-h al f-y ear d el a y b e t ween Do g get t ’ s i n d i ct m en t an d arres t );

Za mo r a no , 8 4 S.W .3 d at 6 49 (re v ers i n g tri al an d ap p el l at e co u rt s ’ fai l u re t o g ran t

rel i ef b as ed o n a t wo -y ear, ten -m o n t h d el ay b et ween ap p el l an t’ s a r res t an d t h e h eari n g

o n hi s s p eed y t ri al m ot io n ); S ta t e v. Per ki ns , 9 1 1 S.W

. 2 d 5 4 8

, 5 5 1 (Tex

. Ap p .— Fo rt

W o rt h 1 9 9 5

, n o p et

. ) (affi rm i n g rel i ef g ran t ed b as ed o n t wo -y ear, n i n e-m o n t h d el ay

b et ween i n d i ct m en t an d t h e s p eed y t ri al h eari n g ); s ee a l so S ha w v. S t a te 1 1 7 S.W .3 d

8 8 3

, 8 9 0 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p. 20 0 3 ) (a d el ay of 38 m o nt h s b et ween i n d i ct m en t an d t ri al

req u i res a p res u m

p t i on o f p reju d ice); Dr a g o o v. S t at e
, 9 6 S.W

. 3 d 3 0 8

, 3 1 6 (Tex

.

Cri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ T h e co u r t o f a p p eal s al s o h el d t h at t h e 3 1⁄2 y ear d el ay b et ween

ap p el l an t 's arres t an d t ri al was ‘ p at en tl y e x c e s s i v e ’ an d

, i n i t s el f, ‘ pres u m p t i v el y

p reju d i ci al ’ t o ap p el l an t ' s d efen s e. In acco rd an ce wi t h preced en t

, we m u st ag ree wi th

t h at as s es s m en t

. ”); Go n z a l es v. S t at e , P D

- 0 7 2 4 -1 2

, 2 0 1 3 W L 7 6 5 5 7 5 (Tex

. Cri m

.

Ap p

. Feb

. 2 7

, 2 0 1 3 ); S t a t e v. S mi t h

, 6 6 S.W

. 3 d 4 8 3, 48 9 -9 0 (Tex

. Ap p .— Ty l er 2 0 0 1,

26n o p et .) (affi rm in g rel i ef g ran t ed b as ed on fi v e-y ear d el ay b et ween dat e o f ch arg i n g

i n s t ru m en t an d res o l u t i o n of t he cas e); S t a t e v. R a n g el

, 9 8 0 S.W .2 d 8 4 0

, 8 4 3 -4 5 (Tex

.

Ap p .— San An t on i o 19 9 8

, n o p et .) (affi rm i ng rel i ef g ran t ed bas ed o n t wen t y -m o n th

d el ay b et ween d efen d an t’ s arres t an d t h e s p eed y t ri al h eari n g ).

In t h is cas e, s in ce t h e d el ay s t ret ch es far b ey o n d t h e m i n i m u m n eed ed t o t ri g g er

t h e i n qu i ry , t h i s fact o r sh o ul d wei g h v ery h eav il y i n fav o r o f t h e Defen d an t. Th e o v er

t en y ear d el ay

i n th is cas e i s no t o n l y p res um p t i v e l y p r e

j u d ici al

, it s t ret ch es far, far

b ey o n d t h e ap p ro x i m at el y t wel v e-m o n t h m in i m u m d el ay n eces sary to t ri g g er ju d i ci al

ex am i n at i o n o f a s p eed y t ri al cl ai m

. Th u s , t he l en g t h of th e d el ay h ere s h o ul d wei g h

ex t rem el y h eav i l y ag ai ns t t h e St at e an d i n fav or o f t h e Defen dan t

.

B. Rea s on fo r

t he d el a y

O n c e i t h as b een d et erm i n ed t h at a p res u m p t i vel y p reju d i ci al d el ay h as

o ccu rred

, t h e St at e b ears t he in i t i al b u rd en of p ro v i d i n g a ju s t i fi cat io n fo r t he d el ay

.

W el l s v. S t a t e , 3 1 9 S.W

. 3 d 8 2

, 8 8 (Tex

. A p p

. — San A n t o n i o 2 0 1 0

, p et

. ref’ d ). Th e

wei g h t as s i g ned t o a s t at e’ s reas o n s fo r p os t -accu s at i o n d el ay d ep en d s o n t h e reas on s

p ro ffered

. B a r

ker

, 4 0 7 U.S. at 5 3 1

. At o n e ex t rem e, a d el ib erat e d el ay t o d i sad v an t ag e

t h e d efen s e i s wei g h t ed h eav i l y ag ai n s t t h e s t at e. Id

. At t h e o th er en d o f t h e sp ect ru m ,

d el ay s ex p l ai n ed b y v al id reas o n s , s u ch as a m i s s i n g wi t n es s , wei g h i n f a v o r o f t h e

s t a t e

. S e e Co wa r t v. Ha r g et t

, 1 6 F.3 d 6 4 2 (5 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ) (d i s cu ss in g Ba r ker )

.

27Bet ween t h es e ex trem es , a m o re n eu t ral reas on , s u ch as n eg l i g en ce o r o v ercro wd ed

co u rt s , sh o u l d be wei g ht e d l e s s h eav il y , bu t n ev ert h el es s s h o u l d b e co n s i d ered

b ecau s e t h e u l t i m at e res p o ns i b i l i t y fo r s u ch ci rcu m s t an ces m u s t res t wi t h t h e

g o v e r n m e n t rat h er t h an wi t h t h e d efen d an t

. ” Ba r ker

, 4 0 7 U .S. at 5 3 1 (v i ewi n g

n eg li g en ce as a “ m o re n eu t ral reas o n

... [t hat ] s h o ul d b e wei gh t ed les s h eav i l y ” t h an

an i n ten ti o n al d el ay ). Fi n al l y , wh en n o v al i d reas o n i s o ffered

, t he co u rt m ay p res u m e

t h at t h e reas o n l i es s o m ewh ere b et ween a d e l i b erat e d el ay an d a v al i d reas o n t h at

wo u l d ju st i fy

t h e d el ay

. S

ee Bo s wo r t h v. S t a t e , 0 6 -1 2 -0 0 0 5 8 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 5 6 3 3 2 1

(Tex

. Ap p .— Tex ark an a Feb

. 1 5, 2 01 3

, n o. p et

. h .) (ci ti n g D r a g oo , 9 6 S.W .3 d at 3 1 4 ).

Un d er Tex as l aw, wh en a d efen dan t’ s l o cat i o n i s k n o wn , o r co u l d h av e eas i l y

b een d i s co v ered

, t he St at e i s req u i red t o ex ert d u e d i l i g en ce i n o b tai n i n g t h ei r

p res en ce fo r t ri al

. S t a t e v. Jo n es , 1 6 8 S.W .3 d 3 39

, 3 4 5 (Tex

. Ap p

. — Dal l as 2 0 0 5

, p et

.

ref’ d ); G u ajard o v

. St at e, 9 9 9 S.W .2 d 5 6 6

, 57 0 (Tex

. Ap p .— Ho u s

. [1 4t h Di s t .] 1 9 9 9,

p et

. ref’ d ). In Gu a

j a r d o , t h e co u rt fo u n d t h i s fact o r t o wei g h v ery heav i l y ag ai n s t t h e

St at e, verg i n g o n a d el i b erat e ham peri n g o f t h e d efen s e , w h e r e t h e s h eri ff’ s

d ep art m en t us ed an i n co rrect ad d res s t o t r y t o lo cat e t h e d efen dan t

. Th e co u rt

o b s erv ed :

At b es t

, t he TDHS an d t h e Sh eri ff’ s Dep art m en t were g ro s sl y n eg l i g en t i n th ei r effo rt s t o l ocat e t h e ap p el l an t

. W h i l e w e d o n o t b el i ev e t h at t h ei r
act i o n s w ere d o n e as a d el ib erat e at t em p t t o h am

per t h e ap p el lan t ’ s

28d efen s e, t h ei r act i o ns d o n o t fal l v ery far b el o w t h i s l ev el

, an d t h ey are
cert ai n l y m ore t h an m ere n eg l i g en ce.

Id

. Si m i l arl y , in Ph i l l i

p s , t he co u rt fo u n d t h e s t at e res p o n s i bl e fo r t h e d el ay an d

wei g h e d t h i s fact o r h eav i ly ag ai n s t t h e St at e wh en i t ap p eared t h at t h e St at e’ s o wn

fi les co nt ai n ed t h e i n fo rm at i on n eces s ary t o lo cat e t h e d efen dan t

. 65 0 S.W .2 d 3 9 6,

4 0 0 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 98 3 ). Th e co urt n o ted

, “ [ t ] he s p eed y tri al ri g h t i s t o o

i m p o rt an t t o s an ct i o n n eg l ect , ev en i f n o n w i l fu l .” Id

.

In Do g g et t

, t h e C o u r t fo u n d t h at t h e g ov ern m en t was n eg l i g en t i n fai l i n g to

l o cat e, t ra ck d o w n, an d ap p reh en d t h e defen d an t

. In Do g get t

, g o v ern m en t ag en t s

l earn ed t hat t h e d efen d an t had l eft fo r Co l o m b i a a few d ay s b efo re p o l i ce o ffi cers

at t em p t ed t o arres t h i m at h i s p aren ts ’ h o u s e i n N o rt h Caro l i n a i n 1 9 80

. Do g g et t

, 5 0 5

U.S. at 6 48 -4 9

. A DEA ag en t p l aced t h e d efen d an t ’ s n am e i n t h e TECS d at ab as e t o

cat ch h im u p o n hi s ret urn , b ut t h e en t ry l ap s ed in l es s t h an a y ear. Id

. a t 6 4 9

. Th e

s am e ag en t l at er l earn ed t h at t h e d efen d an t was arres t ed i n Pan am a i n 1 98 1

, bu t rat h er

t h an i n it i at e ex t rad i ti o n p ro ceed i n g s h e s im pl y as k ed Pan am a t o ex p el t h e d efen d an t

t o t h e U n i t ed St at es

. Id

. Th e St at e D ep art m en t l earn ed t h at th e d efen d an t l eft

Pan am a fo r Co l o m

bi a i n 1 9 8 2

, b u t d i d n ot co m m u n i cat e t h i s i n fo rm at i o n t o t h e DEA.

Id

. Th e o ri g i n al DEA ag en t on t h e cas e l at er fo rt ui t o us l y l earn ed o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s

m o ve i n 1 98 5 b u t m ad e n o effo rt t o co n fi rm t hi s i n fo rm at i o n o r t rack do wn t h e

29d efen d an t ei t h er ab ro ad o r i n t h e Un it ed St at es

. Id

. at 6 4 9 -5 0

. In fact

, t h e d efen d an t

h ad ret u rn ed to t h e Un i t ed St at es i n 1 9 8 2. Id

. at 6 4 9

. He s et t led i n Vi rg i n i a, m arri ed

,

earn ed a co l l eg e d eg ree, an d fo u n d a s t ead y jo b, al l u n d er h i s o wn n am e. Id

. In 1 9 8 8,

t h e M ars h al ’ s Serv i ce ran a c r e d i t c h eck o n sev eral t ho u san d peo p l e su b ject to

o u t s t an d i n g arres t warran ts an d l o cat ed t h e d efen d an t wi t h i n m i nu t es

. Id

. at 6 5 0

. Th e

Co u rt h el d t h at t h e g o vern m en t ’ s let h arg i c effo rt s to ap p reh en d Do g get t co ns t i t u t ed

“ fi n d ab l e n eg l i g en ce.” Id

. at 6 52 -5 3

.

In Or a n d v. S t a te

, 2 5 4 S.W .3 d 5 6 0

, 5 6 3 (Tex

. Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 20 0 8

, p et

.

ref’ d ), t h e St at e p ro v i d ed n o ex p l an at i on fo r i t s fai l u re t o m a ke ev en a s i n g l e effo rt

t o ap p reh en d t h e d efen d an t

. Th e co u rt he l d t h at i n t h e ab s en ce o f an y ex p l an at i o n,

t h e d el ay wei g h ed h eav i l y ag ai n s t t he St at e. Th e reco rd i n Or a n d rev eal ed t h at t h e

g ran d ju ry ret u rn ed an i n d i ct m en t o n J u n e 9

, 1 99 4

, ch arg i n g t he d efen d an t wi th

i n d ecen cy w i t h a ch i ld

. Th e i n ci d en t h ad o ccu rred in J u n e 1 99 2 i n t h e Ci t y o f Lak e

Dal l as i n De n t o n Co u n ty

. T h e d efen d an t w as ei g h t een o r n i n et een y ears o l d at t h e

t i m e o f t h e o ffen s e an d was t h e u n cl e o f t h e v ict i m

. Al t h o ug h a w a r r a n t i s s u ed in

1 9 9 4 fo r t h e d efen d an t ’ s arres t

, h e d i d n ot learn o f t h e i n di ct m en t or warran t fo r

al m o s t twel v e y ears

. Th e defen d an t was l i v i n g w i t h h i s m o th er, th e g ran d m o t h er o f

t h e v i ct i m , fo r t h e en t i re t wel v e-y ear p eri o d. In Feb ru ary 2 0 0 6

, t h e d efen d an t fi n al l y

l earn ed o f t h e wa r r a n t a n d i m m ed i at el y t u rn ed hi m s el f i n t o au t h o ri t i es

. Th e co u rt

30fo u n d t h at b ecau s e t h e d efen dan t co u l d eas i l y hav e b een l o cat e d

, t h e s t at e was

n eg li g en t i n fai l in g t o ap p reh en d h i m an d b ri ng h i m

t o t ri al

. Id

.

Li k ewi s e, i n t h e p res en t cas e, t h i s fact o r s h o u l d wei g h h eav i l y ag ai n s t t h e s t at e

b ecau s e t h e g o v ern m en t’ s neg l i g en ce is res p o n si b l e f o r t h e len g t h y d el ay b et ween

Defen d an t ’ s i n d i ct m en t an d arres t

. Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at h e ap p li ed fo r a ren ewal

o f h i s p erm an en t res i d en cy s t at u s wi th t h e U n it ed St at es G o v ern m en t

. Th e reco rd

refl ect s th at he was l i v i ng i n Hen d ers o n , Nev ad a. Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at h e ret ai n ed

an at t o rn ey i n M cAl l en Tex as an d th at h e was t rav el i n g b ack an d fo rt h fro m M ex i co

t o th e U n i t ed St at es

. Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at Ap p el l an t was fi n g erp ri n t ed as p art o f

t h e ren ewal o f hi s p erm an en t res i d en cy s t at u s

. At n o t i m e was he arres t ed o n an y

o u t s t an d i n g warran t s

. Cl earl y , t h e St at e was n eg l i g en t i n i s s u i n g an y warran t

as s o ci at ed wi t h t h es e ch arg es

.

T h e S t at e’ s n eg l i gen ce, h o wev er i n n o cen t, m i l i t at es ag ai n s t t he St at e

.

Br a ns cu m v. St a t e , 7 5 0 S.W .2 d 8 9 2

, 8 9 5 (Tex

. Ap p .— Am ari l l o 1 9 8 8, no p et .); S t a t e

v. F l o res , 9 5 1 S.W .2 d 1 34

, 1 41 (Tex

. Ap p .— Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 99 7 ) (d el ay cau s ed by

n eg li g en t ad m i n i s trat iv e erro rs i n d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce m i l i t at es ag ai n s t t h e St at e

i n Si x t h Am en d m en t an al y s i s); Or a n d v. S t a t e , 2 5 4 S.W .3 d 56 0 (Tex

. Ap p

. — F o r t

W o rt h 2 0 0 8 ) (“ In t h e ab s en ce o f an y ex p l a n a t i o n , th e d el ay wei g h s ag ai n s t t h e

St at e.”). W h en t h e go v ern m en t 's n eg l i g e n ce cau s es d el ay an d wh en p res u m ed

31p reju d i ce i s u n co n t ro v ert ed

, t h e d efen d an t s h o ul d b e affo rd ed rel i ef o n s p eed y t ri al

g ro u nd s

. Emp ak at 6 2 4 ; D o g g e t t

, 1 1 2 S.Ct

. at 2 6 9 3

. Th i s fact o r wei g h s h eav i l y

ag ai n s t t h e St at e.

Th e fact t h at t h e Defen d an t l eft t h e co u n t ry i s o f no m at eri al si g n ifi can ce t o t h i s

fact or. H e t h en ret u rn ed t o t h e Un i t ed St at es

. He l i v ed o p en l y i n Hen d ers o n Nev ad a

an d i n M cAl l en Tex as wi t h h i s s o n

. Hi s b ro t h ers l i v ed i n Ho u s t o n

. He was read i l y

acces s i b l e t o b e f

o r m a l ly ch arg ed

, arres t ed an d b ro u g ht t o t ri al

. M o re i m p o rt an t l y ,

h e left t h e co u n t ry b efo re h e was i nd i ct ed o r k n ew o f an y act u al ch arg es w e r e f i l ed

ag ai n s t h i m

. W h en h e ret u rn ed t h e Un i ted St at es , h e h ad n o reas o n t o k n o w t h at h e

s h o u ld as s ert h i s ri g h ts t o a s p eed y t ri al an d co u l d n o t h av e p o ss i b l y acq u ies ced i n t h e

l en g t h y d el ay

. S

ee Do g g et t

, 5 0 5 U.S. at 6 5 2 ; c.f

. Un i t ed S ta t es v. Es ca mi l l a , 2 4 4 F.

Su p p

. 2 d 7 6 0

, 7 6 9 (S.D. T ex

. 2 0 0 3 ) (d i s t i n g u i s h i n g fro m t h e fact s o f Do g g et t an d

fi nd i ng t h e d efen d an t ’ s co n du ct o f fl eei n g fro m au t h ori t ies p o s t i n di ct m en t was t h e

p ri m ary reas o n fo r t h e d el ay ).

C. As s er t i o n o f t he r i g ht

Th e n at u re o f th e s pee d y t r i a l ri g h t m ak es i t i m p o s s i b l e t o p i n p o in t a p reci s e

t i m e i n t h e p ro ces s wh en t h e ri gh t m u st b e as s ert ed o r wai v ed

, b u t t h at fact d o es n ot

arg u e fo r p l aci ng t h e b urd en o f pro t ect i n g t h e ri g h t s o lel y o n d efen d an t s

. Ba r ker

, 4 0 7

U

. S

. a t 5 2 7

, 92 S. Ct

. at 2 1 9 0

. T h e ri g h t t o a s p eed y t ri al i s co n s ti t ut i o n a l l y

32g u aran teed an d

, as s u ch

, i s n o t t o b e h o no red o n l y fo r t he v i g il an t an d t h e

k n o wl ed g eab l e. Id

. at n

. 5 2 7

, 9 2 S. Ct

. at 2 1 9 0 (q u o t i n g Ho d g es v. Un i t ed S t a t es , 4 0 8

F.2 d 5 4 3

, 5 5 1 (8 t h Ci r. 1 9 6 9 )). Co n s eq u en t ly

, t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt h as

ex p res s l y reject ed t he p ro p o s i t i o n th at a d efen d an t wh o fai l s t o d em an d a s p eed y t ri al

h as fo rev er wai v ed h i s ri g h t

. Id

. at 5 2 8

, 9 2 S. Ct

. at 2 1 9 1 (s t at i n g “ [w] e reject

,

t h erefo re, t h e ru l e t h at a d efen dan t wh o fai l s t o d em an d a s p eed y t ri al fo rev er wai v es

h i s ri g h t .”). Th i s d o e s n o t m ean , h o wev er, t h at a d efen d an t h as n o res p o n s i b i l i t y to

as s ert hi s ri g h t

. Id

. , 9 2 S. Ct

. at 2 1 9 1

. Th e bet t er ru l e i s t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s as s ert i o n

o f o r fai l ure t o as s ert h i s ri g h t t o a sp eed y t ri al i s on e o f t h e fact o rs t o b e co n s i d ered

i n an in q ui ry i n t o t h e d ep ri v at i o n o f th e ri g h t

. Id

. ; O r a n d v. S t a t e , 2 54 S.W .3 d 5 6 0,

5 6 8 (Tex . Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 0 8 ).

In Do g g et t

, t h e Co u rt fu rt h er ex p l ai n ed t h at wh en a d efen d an t d o es n o t k n o w

o f t h e i n d i ct m en t o r warran t h e can n o t b e “ t ax ed ” fo r i n v o k i ng h i s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s

o n l y aft er h i s arres t

. Do g

g et t

, 5 0 5 U.S. at 6 5 3 -5 4

. M o reo v er, as th e Co u rt i n Do g g et t

as s ert ed

, a d efen d an t ’ s fai l u re t o as s ert h i s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s at t h e earl i es t p o s s i b l e

o p p o rt u ni t y d o es no t t ri g g er a wai v er o f th e ri g h t i n ab s en ce o f ev i den ce t hat a wai v er

was i nt en d ed

. Do g

g et t

, 5 05 U.S. at 6 5 4

. In d eed

, i t is t h e d u t y o f s t at e, n o t t h e

d efen d an t

, t o b ri n g t h e d efen d an t t o t ri al

. Za m o r a n o , 84 S.W .3 d at 6 5 1 (ci t i n g Ba r ker

,

4 0 7 U.S. at 5 34 -3 6 ).

33Em

b raci n g t h e ho l d i n g o f t h e Do g g et t Co u rt

, in Del un a , t h e c o u r t h el d t h at

b eca u s e t h e d efen d an t di d n ot k n o w t h ere was an i n di ct m en t ag ai n s t h i m , was n ot

rep res en t ed b y co u n s el

, an d h ad n o t been n o ti fi ed o f h i s ri g h t t o a s p eed y tri al

, t h i s

fact or wo u l d wei g h ag ai n s t h i m o n l y s l i g h t l y

. Del u n a v. St a t e , 2 0 12 Tex

. Ap p.

LEXIS 72 0 9

, 14 -1 5 ( T e x

. A p p.— Dal las Au g

. 2 7

, 2 0 1 2 ). Si m il arl y , in Fl o r es , t h e

co u rt decl ared th at “ a cri m i n al d efen d an t can n o t b e ex p ect ed t o d em an d a t ri al b efo re

h e is ch arg ed .” St a t e v. F l o r es , 9 5 1 S.W

. 2 d 1 3 4

, 1 4 1 (Tex

. A p p .— Co rp u s Ch ri s t i

1 9 9 7 , n o p et .)

M o reo v er, i t s eem s th at t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er t he defen d an t ’ s sp eed y t ri al ri g ht

was t im el y as s ert ed s h o u ld b e t reat ed d i f f e r e n t l y b y th e t ri al co u rt o n a m o t i o n to

d i s m i s s t h en o n ap p eal

. Th i s i s n o t ex p res s l y s t at ed an y wh ere i n th e cas e l aw.

Ho wev er, sev eral ap p el l at e d eci s i o n s co n t en d t h at a d efen dan t sh o u l d n o t b e ab l e to

u s e a s p eed y t ri al cl ai m t o t ry t o g et o u t o f act u al l y h av i n g to g o t ri al

. Fo r ex am p l e,

i n S t a t e v

. Ma n l ey , t h e co u rt av erred t h at a d efen d an t 's l ack o f a t i m el y d em an d fo r

a s p eed y t ri al “ i nd i cat es s t ro n g l y ” t h at h e o r s h e d i d n o t real l y w an t a s p e e d y t ri al ;

t h u s , i n act i o n wei g hs m o re h eav i l y ag ai n s t a v io l at i o n t h e lo n g er t h e d el ay b eco m es

.

S t a t e v. Ma nl ey , 2 2 0 S.W .3 d 11 6

, 1 2 8 (Tex

. Ap p .— W aco 2 0 0 7

, n o p et .) ( c i t i n g

Ha r ri s v. S t a t e, 8 2 7 S.W .2 d 9 4 9

, 9 5 7 (T e x

. C r i m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 2 ) (fi n d i n g t h at t h e

d efen d an t fai l ed t o t i m el y as s ert h i s s p eed y t ri al ri g h ts

, b ut al s o u p h o l d in g t h e t ri al

34co u rt ’ s co n cl u si o n t h at t he d efen d an t ’ s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s were v i o l at ed ). Si m i l arl y ,

i n Ri ver a v. S t a t e , t h e co u rt h el d t h at a d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i s s fo r l ack o f a

s p eed y t ri al d i d n o t am o u n t t o a req u es t fo r s p eed y t ri al an d t h us , t he d efen d an t ’ s l ack

o f d em an d fo r a s peed y t ri al wei g h ed heav i l y ag ai n st t h e d efen d an t wh ere t h e

m o ti o n ’ s p ri m ary o b

ject i v e was n o t to g ai n a s p eed y t ri al b u t was in s t ead

, an at t em pt

t o hav e t h e ch arg e ag ai n st th e d efen d an t d i s m is s ed

. Ri ver a v. S t a t e , 9 9 0 S.W .2 d 8 8 2,

8 9 1 (Tex

. Ap p .— Au s t i n 1 9 9 9

, p et

. ref’ d ); s ee a l s o Do kt er v. S t a te

, 2 8 1 S.W .3 d 1 5 2,

1 5 8 (Tex

. Ap p .— Tex ark an a 20 0 9

, n o p e t .) (h o l d i n g th at nearl y fi v e y ear d el ay

b et ween t h e d efen d an t ’ s arres t an d t ri al d i d n o t v i ol at e h i s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t ).

Un l i ke t h es e s i tu at i o ns , th e d el ay at i s s u e i n t h i s cas e is b et ween th e d at e o f t h e

i n d i ct m en t an d t h e su b seq uen t arres t as o pp o s ed t o t h e t i m e peri o d b et ween t h e d at e

o f arres t an d s u b seq uen t tr ia l

. Th e D efen d an t h as d em o n st rat ed “ n o affi rm at i v e d es i re

fo r d el ay .” S

ee Za m o r a n o , 8 4 S.W .3 d a t 6 5 2

. He d i d n o t fi l e an y t im e co n s u m i n g

p ret ri al m o t i o ns , o r as k t h e co u rt f o r c o n t i n u an ces o n t h es e ch arg es , o r d el ay t h e

p ro ceed in g s t h ro u g h h i s o wn act i o n s

. Co mp a r e S t a t e v. S mi t h

, 0 6

- 1 2

- 0 0 1 7 4 -CR,

2 0 1 3 W L 6 2 4 1 2 6 (Tex

. Ap p .— Tex ark an a Feb

. 2 0

, 2 0 13

, n o

. p et

. h .) (fi n d i n g t h at t h e

d e f e n d a n t ex h i b i t ed a d es i re fo r t h e d el ay b et w een h i s arres t an d t ri al b y fi l i n g fo r

co n ti n u an ces an d t h en rem ai n in g i n act i ve fo r si x y ears , bu t n ev ert hel es s co n cl u d i n g

t h at t h e d efen d an t’ s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s w ere v i o l at ed ). S ee Del u na v. S t a t e , 0 5 -1 0

-

350 1 3 3 9 -CR, 2 0 1 2 W L 3 6 4 2 3 0 8 (Tex

. Ap p .— D al l as Au g. 2 7, 2 0 1 2

, p et

. ref’ d ) (“ By t h e

t i m e ap p e l l a n t was fi n al l y arres t ed an d n ot i fi ed o f th e i n di ct m en t an d t h e s p eci fi c

ch arg es ag ai n s t h im

, ei g h t y ears h ad al read y p as s ed fro m th e t im e o f th e o ffen s e. At

t h at t i m e, i t was t o o l at e fo r ap p el l an t t o o b tai n a ‘ s peed y t ri al .’ ”). Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s

fact or s h o u l d wei g h i n t h e Defen d an t’ s fav or, o r at t h e v e r y l e a s t

, carry n eu t ral

wei g h t

. Un i t ed S t a t es v. Ca r d o n a , 3 0 2 F.3 d 4 94

, 4 9 8 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ) (fi n d i n g t h e

t h i r d fact o r t o wei g h h eav i l y i n t h e defen d an t ’ s fav o r wh ere t h ere was n o ev i d en ce

t h at h e k n ew o f th e ch arg es ag ai n s t h im u nt i l h is arres t); U n i t ed St a t es v. Ber

g f el d

,

2 8 0 F.3 d 4 8 6

, 48 9 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ) (co n cl u d i n g t h at t he d efen d an t ’ s l ack o f k n o wl ed g e

o f t h e i n d i ct m en t u n t i l aft er i t was u n s eal ed m ean t t h i s fact or wei g h ed ex cl u s i v el y in

d efen d an t ’ s fav or).

D. Pr ej ud

i ce

Th e fi n al p ro n g o f t h e Ba r ker t es t req u i res an as s es sm en t o f p reju d i ce “ i n t h e

l i gh t o f t h e i n t eres t s of d efen d an t s w h i ch t h e s p eed y t ri al ri g h t was d es i g n ed to

p ro t ect .” Ba r

ker

, 4 0 7 U.S. at 5 3 2

. T h es e i nt eres t s i n cl u d e: ( 1 ) p r e v e n t i o n o f

o p p res s i v e p ret ri al i ncarcerat i o n ; (2 ) m i n im i zi n g t he an x i et y an d co ncern o f t h e

accu s ed ; an d (3 ) l im i ti n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f im p ai rm en t to t h e d efen se. Id .; Go o d r u m

v. Qu a r t er ma n , 5 4 7 F.3 d 2 4 9

, 2 6 0 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ). St at ed d ifferen t l y , “ u n reas o n ab l e

36d el ay bet ween fo rm al accu s at i o n an d t ri al t h reat en s to p ro d u ce” th es e reco g n i zed

cat eg o ri es o f h arm

. Do g

g et t , 5 05 U.S. at 6 5 4.

Un d er T ex as l aw, wh en t h e d el ay b et w een i n d i ct m en t an d arres t i s fo u n d t o b e

p r e s u m p t i v el y p reju d i ci al

, t h e b u rd en is o n t h e s t at e t o reb ut o r ex t en u at e t h e

p res u m p t i o n o f p reju d i ce. G o nz a l es v. S t at e , PD-0 72 4 -1 2

, 2 0 13 W L 7 6 5 5 7 5 (Tex

.

Cri m

. Ap p

. Feb

. 2 7

, 2 0 1 3). In G o n z a l es , a recen t u n p u b l i sh ed o pi n i on i s s u ed b y t h e

Co u rt o f Cri m in al Ap p eal s , th e Co u rt cl ari fi ed t h i s p o i n t, ex p l ai n i n g t hat wh ere t h e

d el ay i s p res u m

p t i vel y p reju d i ci al

, Do g g et t ab s o l v es t h e accu s ed fro m t h e

req u i rem en t o f d em o n s t rat i n g p reju d ice. Id

. In Go n z a l es , th e Co urt hel d t h at t h e co u rt

o f ap peal s had i n co rrect ly p l aced t h e bu rd en o n t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d em o n s t rat e

p r e j u d i ce. Th e Co u rt fo un d t h at “ t h e s i x -y ear d el ay b et ween t h e ap p el l an t ’ s

i n d i ct m en t an d h i s arres t ‘ p res u m p t iv el y co m

p ro m i se[d ] t he rel i ab i l i t y o f a t ri al in

way s t h at n ei t h er p art y can p ro ve o r, fo r t h at m at t er, i d en t i fy

. ’ ” Id

. T herefo re, u n d er

Do g g et t

, t h e co u rt o f ap p eal s s h ou l d h a v e rev i ewed t h e reco rd n ot fo r p ro o f o f

p reju d i ce b u t rat h er fo r ev i den ce o f t h e reb u t t al o r ex t en u at io n o f p reju d i ce. Id

.

In o t h er wo rd s , un d er Do g g et t

, i f “ ‘ t h e p res um

p t i on of p reju d i ce, al b ei t

u n s p eci fi ed

, i s n ei t h er ex t en u at ed

, as b y t h e d efen dan t's acq u i es cen c e , n o r

p ers u a s i v e l y reb u t t ed ,’ t hen t h e d efen d an t i s en t i t l ed t o rel i ef.” Un i t ed S t a t es v.

Ca r d o n a , 3 0 2 F.3 d 4 9 4, 4 9 9 (5 t h Ci r. 2 00 2 ) (q u ot i n g Do g g et t

, 50 5 U.S. at 6 5 8 ); s ee

37S t a t e v. S

mi t h

, 0 6-1 2-0 01 7 4 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 6 2 4 1 26 (Tex

. Ap p .— T ex ark an a Feb

. 2 0,

2 0 1 3

, n o

. p et

. h

. ) (co n cl ud i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g t hat th e Defen d an t m ad e

a p ri m a faci e s h owi n g o f p reju d i c e s h i f t e d th e b u rd en t o t h e St at e t o s h o w t h at t h e

d efen d an t s u ffered “ n o s eri o u s p reju d i ce b ey o n d t hat w h i ch en s u ed fro m t h e o rd i n ary

an d i nev i t ab l e d el ay ) (ci t i n g St a t e v. Mu n o z
, 9 9 1 S.W .2 d 8 1 8, 8 2 6 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p.

1 9 9 9 ); Pu cket t v. S t a t e, 2 7 9 S.W .3 d 4 3 4

, 4 3 7 (Tex

. Ap p.— Tex ark an a 2 0 0 9

, n o p et .)).

In S mi t h

, t h e co u rt fo u n d t h e p reju d i ce fact o r to w ei g h i n t h e defen d an t ’ s fav o r wh ere

t h ere w as a p ri m a faci e fi n d i n g o f p reju d i ce u n d er t h e fi rs t Ba r ker fact o r an d t h e s t at e

fai l ed t o p res en t e v i d en ce t o reb u t t h e p res u m p t i o n o f p reju d i ce, ev en t h o u g h t h e

d efen d an t d i d n o t p r e s en t an y t es t i m o n y o r ev i d en ce t o s h ow p reju d i ce. S t a t e v.

S mi th

, 0 6-1 2 -0 0 17 4 -CR, 2 0 1 3 W L 6 2 4 1 2 6 (Tex

. A pp.

— T e xa r ka na F e b. 20, 2013, no.

p et . h .).

In t h e pres en t cas e, t he o v er t en y ear d el ay creat es a pri m a faci e s h o wi n g o f

p reju d i ce s u ffered b y t h e Defen dan t

. Th erefo re h e sh o ul d b e en t i t l ed to rel i ef b ecau s e

t h e s t a t e can n o t s h ow t h at th e Defen d an t h as n o t s uffered p reju d i ce b y t h is l en g t h y

d el ay

. Fu rt h erm ore, ev en i f t h e s t at e p res en t s s o m e ev id en ce t o ex t en u at e t h e

p res u m p t i o n o f preju d ice t ri gg ered b y t he l en g t h y d el ay i n t h i s cas e, h e i s

n ev ert h el es s en t i t led t o rel i ef. Th e l en gt h y d el ay b et w een t h e i n di ct m en t an d arres t

38o f t h e Defen d an t i n t h i s cas e s ev erel y i m p ai rs h i s ab i l i t y t o p re s e n t a d efen s e an d

t h erefo re h e h as s u ffered p reju d i ce. 1

Im p ai rm en t o f o n e’ s d efen s e i s t h e m o s t d iffi cu l t fo rm of s peed y t ri al p reju d i ce

t o p ro v e b ecau s e t i m e’ s ero si o n o f ex cu l pat o ry ev i d en ce an d t es ti m o n y can rarel y b e

s h o wn

. Ba r

ker

, 4 0 7 U .S. at 5 3 2

, 9 2 S. Ct

. at 2 1 9 3

. Nev ert h el es s, t h e p o s s ib i l i t y t h at

d i m m in g m em o ri es an d l os s o f ex cu lp at o ry ev i d en ce wi l l d im in is h t h e accu s ed ’ s

d efen s e i s th e m o s t s eri o u s i n teres t t hat t h e ri gh t t o s p eed y t ri al p ro t ect s b ecau s e t h e

i n ab i l i t y of a d efen d an t to ad eq u at el y p rep are hi s cas e s k ews t h e fai rn es s o f t h e en t i re

s y s t em

. Do g

g et t

, 50 5 U.S. at 6 5 4

, 1 1 2 S

. C t at 2 6 9 2. Affi rm at i ve ev i d en ce o f

p art i cu l ari zed p reju d i ce i s n o t es s en t i al t o ev ery s p eed y t ri al cl ai m b ecau se ex ces s i v e

d el ay p res u m

p t i v el y co m

p ro m i s es t h e rel i ab i l i t y

o f a t ri al i n way s t h at nei t h er p art y

can p ro v e o r ev en i d en t ify

. Id

. at 6 5 5

, 1 1 2 S. Ct

. at 2 6 9 3. An d t h e p res um p t i o n o f

p reju d i ce g ro ws an d i n t en s i fi es o v er t i m e. Id

. at 6 5 6

, 11 2 S. Ct . at 2 6 9 3 . Ho wev er,

t h e p res u m

p t i o n o f p reju d i ce t o a d e f e n d an t ’ s ab i l i t y t o defen d h i m s el f can b e

“ ex t en u at ed

... b y t h e d efen d an t ’ s acq u i es cen ce” i n t h e d el ay

. Id

. at 6 58 , 1 1 2 S. Ct

.

2 6 9 4

.

Do g

get t i s l i kel y co n t ro l l i n g o n t h i s i s s u e h ere. In Do g g et t

, ei g h t

- a n d

- a

- h al f

y ear s e l a p s e d b et ween t h e d efen d an t ’ s i n d i ct m en t an d h i s arres t

. Id

. at 64 8

, 1 1 2 S.

1 B ecause Defendant was not confined and was unaware of the charg es ag ainst him or of the warrant that had issued for his arrest, the first two interests are not at issue here.

39Ct

. at 2 6 8 9

. Th e d efen dan t d i d n o t k n ow o f t h e ch arg es ag ai n st h i m , left t h e co u n t ry

fo r t w o ye ars , t hen ret u rn ed t o t h e Un i t ed St at es an d p as s ed u n hi n dered t h ro u g h

cu s t o m s, s et t l ed i n Vi rg in i a, m a r ri ed

, earn ed a co l l eg e deg ree, fo u n d a s t ead y jo b,

l i v ed o p en l y u nd er h i s n am e, an d s t ay ed wi t h in t h e law. Id

. at 6 4 9

, 11 2 S. Ct

. at

2 6 8 9

. Si x y ears aft er t h e d efen d an t ret urn ed to t h e Un i t e d S t at es , he was arres t ed

.

Id

. at 6 5 0

, 1 1 2 S. Ct

. at 2 6 9 0

. Aft er h i s arr e s t

, t h e d e f e n dan t rai s ed a s p eed y t ri al

cl ai m

. Id

., 11 2 S. Ct

. at 2 69 0

. Th e t ri al co u rt fo u nd t h at th e g o v ern m en t was n eg l i g en t

i n it s effo rt s t o ap p reh en d t h e d efen d an t d u ri n g t h e s i x y ears aft er h e ret u rn ed t o t h e

Un i ted St at es , bu t d en i ed hi s s p eed y t ri al cl ai m b ecau s e i t f o u n d t h at t h e d efen d an t

h ad n o t been p reju d i ced

. Id

. at 6 5 0, 1 12 S. Ct

. at 2 6 9 0

. A sp l i t p an el o f t h e co u rt o f

ap p eal s affi rm ed

. S

ee Un i t ed S t a t es v. Do g

g et t

, 9 0 6 F.2 d 5 7 3

, 58 2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ).

Th e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt rev ers ed th e ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt an d

o f t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s an d fo u n d t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s h ad b een

v i o l a t e d b y t he si x -y ear d el ay i n hi s arres t aft er h e ret u rn ed t o t he U n i t ed St at es

.

Do g g et t

, 5 0 5 U.S. at 6 5 8

, 1 1 2 S. Ct

. at 2 6 9 4

. Co n cern i n g th e p reju d i ce p ro n g o f t h e

Bark er an al y s i s, t h e Do g

g et t Co u rt ex p l ai n ed t h at th e d efen d an t w as n o t req u i red to

s h o w p reju d ice:

W h en t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s n eg l i g en ce t h u s cau s es d el ay s i x ti m es as l o n g as t h at g en eral l y s u ffi ci en t t o t ri g g er j u d ici al r e v i e w,... an d wh en
t h e p res u m

p t io n o f p reju d i ce, al bei t u n s peci fi ed

, i s nei t h er ex t en uat ed

,

40as b y t he d efen d an t ’ s acq u i es cen ce, n or p ers u as i vel y reb u t t ed

, th e

d efen d an t i s en t i t l ed t o rel i ef.

Id

.

Tex as co u rt s h av e l ik ewi s e fo u n d p reju di ce wh ere th e l en gt h of t h e d el ay an d

t h e n at u re o f t h e ch arg e an d ev id en ce i n t he cas e p res en t ed a st ro n g pro b ab i l i t y t h at

t h e d efen d an t ’ s ab i l i t y t o p res en t a d efen s e was im p ai red

. Fo r ex am

p l e, in Or a n d

, t h e

Fo rt W o rt h Co urt o f Ap p eal s rev ers ed t h e d eci s io n o f t he t ri al co u rt an d ren d ered a

ju d g m en t o f acq u i t tal fo r t h e d efen d an t, h ol d i n g t h at th e t wel v e-y ear d el ay b et ween

t h e i n d i ct m en t an d ar r e s t o n a ch arg e o f i n d ecen cy w i t h a ch i l d i m p ai red t h e

d efen d an t ’ s ab i l it y t o p res en t a d efen s e. Or a n d v. S t a t e , 2 5 4 S.W .3 d 5 6 0

, 5 7 0 (Tex

.

Ap p .— Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 0 8 ). In Or a n d

, t h e d efen dan t was i n d i ct ed i n J u n e o f 1 9 9 4 o n

a ch arg e o f in d ecen cy wi t h a ch i l d. I d

. a t 56 3

. Th e d efen d an t was 1 8 y ears o l d in

1 9 9 2 at t h e t i m e o f th e o ffen s e an d was th e u n cl e o f t h e al l eg ed v i ct i m

. Id

. A l t h o u g h

a warran t was i s su ed i n 1 99 4 fo r t h e d efen d an t ’ s arres t, h e di d n o t l earn o f t h e

i n d i ct m en t o r warran t fo r al m o s t t wel v e y ears

. Id

. In Feb ru ary 2 0 06

, t h e d efen d an t

ev en tu al l y l earn ed o f t h e w arran t an d i m m ed i at el y t u rn e d h i m s e l f i n t o au t h o ri t i es

.

Id

. In A u g u s t 2 0 0 6

, o v er fo u rt een y ears aft er t h e d at e o f t he o ffen s e, t h e

d efen d an t

— wh o was b y t h i s t i m e t h i rt y -t wo y ears o ld

— was t ri e d an d co n v i ct ed o f

t h e ch arg ed o ffen se. Id

. Aft er hi s t ri al

, t h e d efen d an t o b t ai n ed ap p el lat e co u n s el wh o

41t i m el y fi l ed a m o t i o n in arres t o f ju d g m en t an d m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e i n d i ct m en t

,

rai s in g a v io l at i o n o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s fed eral co n s t i t u t i on al s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s

. Id

.

In c o n c l u d i n g t h at t h e d efen d an t ’ s ab i l i t y to pres en t a d efen s e was im p ai red

,

t h e co urt fi rs t n o t ed t hat s uch a t i m e l ap s e m ad e i t d i ff i c u l t fo r t h e defen d an t to

rem em b er k ey fact s ab o ut t h e d ay o f t h e i nci d en t o r i d en t i fy p o t en t i al wi t n es s es t h at

co u ld ex o n erat e h i m fro m t h e ch arg es

. Id

. at 57 0

. Th e co u rt ex p lai n ed t hat t h e t i m e

l ap s e i n th e cas e d ep ri v ed th e d efen d an t of t he ab i l i t y to effect i v el y cro s s -ex am i n e t h e

St at e’ s wi t n es s es b ecau s e “ an y wo rd u t t ered o r an y fact o r det ai l p ro v i d e d b y t h e

St at e’ s w i t n es s was s i m

p l y u n i m p each ab l e.” Id

. Acco rd in g t o t h e co u rt

, “ t h e p as s ag e

o f t i m e ren d ered t h e cred ib i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e ’s wi tn es s es co n cret e, ex em p t fro m t h e

t e s t i n g fi re o f a cro s s -ex am in at i o n p l an n ed aft er d et ai led wi tn es s i n terv i ews an d

ex t en s i v e d efen s e i n v es t i g at i on .” Id

. An d al t h o u g h t h e d efen d an t co ul d n o t p o i n t to

an y s p eci fi c affi rm at i v e ev i d en ce o f part i cu l ari zed p reju d i ce, t h e co u rt co n cl u d ed t h at

t h e ex t rem e an d ex ces s i v e len g t h o f t he d el ay i n t h e cas e p res u m p t i v el y co m

p ro m i s ed

t h e rel i ab i l i t y of t h e d efen d an t ’ s t ri al i n way s t h at n ei t h er p art y co ul d p ro v e o r ev en

i d en t i fy

, an d fu rt h erm o re, tha t this pr e sum p tion o f p reju d i ce i n t en s i fi ed an d g rew wi th

each p as s i n g y ear o f d el a y

. O r a n d

, 2 5 4 S.W .3 d at 5 7 0 (ci t i ng D o g g et t

, 5 05 U.S. at

6 5 5 ).

42Si m i l arl y , in Del u n a , t h e D a l l a s Co u rt of Ap p eal s h el d i n an u n p u b l i s h ed

o p i n i o n t h at t h e ei g ht -y ear del ay b et w een t h e d efen d an t ’ s i n d i ct m en t an d arres t o n a

ch arg e o f in decen c y wi t h a ch i l d s i g n ifi can t l y im pai red h i s ab il i ty t o p res en t a

d efen s e. Del u n a v. S t a te , 0 5 -1 0 -0 1 3 3 9 -CR, 2 0 1 2 W L 3 6 4 2 3 0 8 (Tex . Ap p .— Dal l as

Au g

. 2 7

, 2 0 1 2

, p et

. ref’ d ). In Del u n a , t h e St at e rel i ed en t i rel y o n t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e

ch i l d an d h er m o t h er t o p ro v e i t s al leg at i on s

. Id

. Th e co u rt s t at ed t h e ei gh t -y ear t i m e

g ap b et ween t he de f

e n dan t ’ s i nd i ct m en t an d arres t u n d erm in ed t h e d efen d an t’ s ab i l i t y

t o p res en t a d efen s e b ecau s e h e was u n ab l e t o effect i v el y cro s s -ex am i n e ei g h t -y ear

o l d m em o ri es an d ei g h t -y ear o l d d et ai l s

. Id

. Th e co u rt co ncl u d ed t hat th e “ h e s ai d,

she s ai d ” n at u re o f t he ev id en ce ren d ered cro ss -ex am i n at i o n o f t h e wi t n es s es e sse ntia l

t o th e d efen d an t ’ s d efen s e, an d t h at t h erefo re t h e ex t rem e d el ay cau s ed t h e d efen d an t

t o s u ffer p reju d i ce. Id

.

Li k e i n b o t h Del u na an d Or a nd

, t h e Defen d an t ’ s cas e p res en ts a h e-s ai d

, s h es ai d s i t u at i o n ; wh ereas , t h e St at e’ s ev id en ce co n s i s t s en t irel y of t h e t es t i m o ny o f t h e

co m p l ai n an t an d h i s m o t h er t o p ro v e t h e al l eg at i o ns i n t he i n di ct m en t

. Th e Defen d an t

reco g n izes t h at th i s ev id en ce i s g en eral l y s u ffi ci en t to s u p p o rt a c o n v i c t io n fo r t h e

al l eg ed cri m e. Nev ert h el es s , s u ch t es t i m on y i s en t i rel y d ep en d en t o n t he m em o ri es

o f t h e wi t n es s es

. Th e Defen d an t ’ s d efen se i s l i k ewi s e d ep en d en t o n h i s b ei n g ab l e

t o effect i v el y cro s s -ex am i n e th e wi t n es s es w i t h res p ect t o t h ei r m em o ri es an d d et ai l s

43fro m o v er t en y ears ag o

. As Tex as co u rt s h av e reco g n i zed

, t h e s i g n i fi can t d el ay o f

o v er 1 2 0 m o n t h s b et ween Defen d an t ’ s in d i ct m en t an d arres t i n t h i s cas e (m o re t h an

6 t i m es th e t h res h o l d to t ri g g er a Ba rker an al y s is ) wi l l m ak e i t v irt u al l y i m p o s s i b l e

fo r t h e Defen d an t t o co n d u c t effect i v e cro s s -ex am i nat i on an d p res en t a co m p et en t

,

rel i ab l e, an d fai r d efen s e o n h i s o wn b eh al f.

E. Ba l a nci ng Tes t

W ei g h i n g al l t he Ba r

ker fact o rs t o get h er, t h e co u rt m u s t di s m i s s t h e ch arg es

ag ai n s t t h e Defen d an t. Th e o v er t en y ear d el ay b et ween i nd i ct m en t an d arres t i s o v er

s i x t i m es b ey o n d t h e t h r es h o l d o f a p res um p t i v el y preju d ici al d el ay an d t h erefo re

s h o u ld be wei g h t ed h eav i l y ag ai n s t t h e St at e. Th e St at e’ s n eg l i g en ce i n arres t i n g t h e

Defen d an t an d b ri n gi n g hi m t o t ri al

, wh i l e no t a d el ib erat e d el ay m ean t t o p reju d i ce

t h e defen d an t, s h o u l d al s o b e wei g h t ed ag ai n s t t h e St at e. Th e D efen dan t s h o u l d n ot

b e tax ed fo r n ot as s ert i n g h i s s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s p ri o r t o t h i s m o ti o n b ecau se h e d id

n o t k n o w o f h is arres t u n ti l n ow. In fact

, t hi s fact o r s h o u l d a l so b e w ei g h ted i n h i s

fav o r, o r at l eas t wei g h t ed ev en l y , becau s e t h e Defen d an t i s n o w t i m el y as s ert i n g h i s

s p eed y t ri al ri g h t s , i m

m ed i at el y u p o n l earn in g o f t h e ch arg es ag ai n s t h i m

. Fi n al l y , t h e

s t at e can no t p res en t s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o reb u t t h e pres u m p t io n o f p reju d i ce cau s ed

b y t h e d el ay i n t h i s cas e. M o reo v er, ev en i f th e s t at e d o es p res en t s o m e ev i d en ce to

reb u t th e p res u m

p t i o n o f preju d i ce, t h e n at u re of t h e ch arg es , t h e s t at e’ s t es t i m o n i al

44ev i d en ce, an d t h e s i g n i fi can t l en g t h o f t h e del ay am o u n t t o p reju d i ce t h e Defen d an t

b y i m p ai ri n g h is ab i l i t y to p res en t a d efen s e to t h e ch arg es

. Th erefo re t hi s Co u rt m u s t

d i s m i s s t he ch arg es ag ai n s t t h e Defen d an t wi t h p reju d i ce.

F. Si x th Am endm ent Prejudi ce

Th e “ p reju d i ce” p ro n g o f S t ri ckl a nd req u i res t h i s Co urt t o d et erm i n e wh et h er

t ri al co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t co n d u ct was s u ffi ci en t t o u n d erm i ne i t s co n fi d en ce i n t h e

v erd i ct

, t h at i s , wh et h er t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e p ro bab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r t h e o bject i v el y

d efi ci en t co n d u ct

, t h e res u l t o f t h e p ro ceed i n g wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t

. S t r i ckl a n d

v. W a s h in g t o n , 4 6 6 U.S. at 6 9 4 ; Kyl es v. W h it l ey , 51 4 U

. S

. 4 1 9

, 4 3 0 (1 9 9 5 ).

Ap p el l an t n eed n o t s ho w t h at h e wo u l d h av e b een acq u it t ed b u t fo r t hes e erro rs an d

t h e p reju d i ce a d efen d an t m us t s h o w i s b y l es s t han a p rep on d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce:

“ a d ef e n d an t n eed n o t sh o w t h at co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t co nd u ct m o re l i k el y t h an n ot

al t ered t h e o u t co m e o f th e t ri al

. ” S t r i ckl a n d v. W a s h i n g to n , 4 6 6 U .S. at 6 9 3

. S ee a l s o

W i l l ia ms v. Ta

yl o r , 5 29 U.S. 3 6 2

, 4 0 5 (2 0 0 0 )(O’ Co n no r, J

., co ncu r ri n g ). Th i s

Co u rt ’ s fo cu s i s o n t h e fai rn es s o f t h e t ri al

. Ki mml ema n v. Mo r ri s o n , 47 7 U.S. 3 6 5,

3 8 0 (1 9 8 6 ) ( “ We h av e nev er i n t i m at ed t h at t h e ri g h t t o co u n s el is co n d it i on ed u p o n

act u al i n n o cen ce.”).

W h i l e t h e p reju d i ce p ro n g o f S t r i ckl a n d can b e s at i s fi ed o n t he b as i s o f a s i n g l e

erro r, s ee Ra mi r ez v. S t a te

, 65 S.W .3 d 1 5 6

, 1 5 8 (Tex

. Ap p .– Am ari l l o , 2 0 0 1 ) (fai l u re

45t o o b

ject t o St at e’ s referen ce t o a c c u s e d as “ d ru nk M ex i can ”); Gr een v. S t a t e , 8 9 9

S.W .2 d 2 4 5, 2 4 8 (Tex . Ap p .--San An t o n i o , 1 9 9 5 ) (fai l ure t o req ues t ju ry ch arg e o n

d efen s i v e t h eo ry of m is t ak e o f fact ), a m ul t i p l i ci t y o f erro rs o n tri al co u n s el ’ s p art i s

m u ch m o r e li kel y t o u nd erm i n e t hi s Co u rt ’ s co n fi d en ce i n t h e o ut co m e o f t h i s

p ro ceed in g

. S

ee Gr e e n e v

. S t a t e , 9 2 8 S.W .2 d at 1 2 6 (“ [A] l t h o u g h each m i s t ak e

s t an d i n g al o n e i s n ot i n effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n s el

, wh en al l o f t h e m i s t ak es are

t ak en t o get h er th i s co u rt ’ s co nfi d en ce i n t h e res u l t i s un d erm i n ed .”); Br o wn v. S t a t e ,

9 7 4 S.W .2 d 2 89

, 2 9 4 (Tex

. A p p

. S a n A nt o n i o 1 9 9 8, p et

. ref’ d ) (m u l t i pl i ci t y o f

co u ns el ’ s d efi ci en t co n d u ct “ u nd erm i n es th i s co u rt ’ s co n fi d en ce i n t h e co n vi ct i o n ”).

Th i s cas e p res en t s i n co m

p el l i n g t erm s “ a b reak d o w n i n t h e ad v ers ari al p ro ces s

t h at o ur s y s t em co u n t s o n t o p ro d u c e j u s t res u l t s .” S t ri ckl a n d v. W a s h i ng t o n , 4 6 6

U.S. at 6 9 6

.

Th e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h a t t h e S u p rem e Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n i n Do g g et t was as a

m at t er o f l aw d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e fro m Ap p el l an t ’ s cas e. An d

, m o re i m p o rt an t ly

, t h at t ri al

co u ns el pro v i d ed effect iv e as s i s t an ce ev en t h ou g h h e d i d n o t i n v es t i g at e t h e l aw

n eces s ary t o p res en t a s p e e d y t r i a l c l ai m no r d i d h e h av e a s i ng l e n ot e i n h i s fi l e

p ert ai n i n g to an y i n ves t i gat i o n o f an y fact s n eces s ary t o p res en t a s p eed y t ri al cl ai m

.

In fact

, t h e t ri al co u rt fo un d t hat t ri al co u n sel was u n aware o f an y fact t o s u p p o rt to

t h e sp eed y t ri al cl ai m as p res en t ed at t h e m o t io n fo r new t ri al heari n g

. Tri al co u n s el

46d i d n o t i n v es t i g at e t h e fact u al b as i s fo r t h e cl ai m b ecau se h e d i d n o t k n o w o r

u n d ers t an d t h e s i gn i fi can ce o f t h e fact s n ece s s ary t o p res en t t h e l eg al cl ai m

. A

l awy er’ s k n o wl ed g e of t h e l aw i s n eces s ary to u n d ers t an d wh at fact s are n eed ed t o b e

d i s co v ered t o s u p p o rt t h e cl ai m

. Th e reco rd i n t hi s cas e s u pp o rt s Ap p el lan t ’ s cl ai m

o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el an d req u ires t hi s Co u rt t o g ran t Ap p el l an t a n ew

t ri al

.

W h erefo re p rem i ses co n s i d ered

, Ap p el l an t p ray s t hat t h i s Co u rt rev ers ed t h e

t ri al co u rt an d g ran t Ap p el l an t a n ew t ri al

.

Pra y er

W HEREFORE PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Ap p el l an t p ray s t h at th i s Co u rt

rev ers e h i s co n v i ct io n an d rem an d t h e cau s e t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r a n ew t ri al

.

Res p ect fu l ly

Su b m i t t ed

,

SCHNEIDER & M cKINNEY, P.C.

/ s / St an l ey

G. Sch nei d er St an l ey G. Sch n ei d er T.B.C. No . 1 7 7 9 05 0 0
4 4 0 Lo u i si an a St

. Su i t e 8 00

Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 0 02
Tel : (7 1 3 ) 9 51 -9 9 9 4

Fax : (7 1 3 ) 2 24 -6 0 0 8

Em ai l : s t an s3 1 1 2 @ ao l .co m

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

47Certi fi ca te o f Serv ice

Th i s i s t o cert i fy th at a t ru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h e at t ach ed an d fo reg o i n g

d o cu m en t h as b een s erv ed o n t h e Harri s Co u n t y Di st ri ct At t o r n ey ’ s Offi ce by

em ai l i ng , m ai l i n g an d / o r h an d del i v eri n g a co p y t o th e Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce at

1 2 0 1 Fran k l i n , Su i t e 6 0 0 ; Ho u s t o n , Tex as 7 7 00 2

, o n t h i s 2 4 t h d ay o f J u l y , 2 0 1 5

.

/ s / St an l ey

G. Sch nei d er St an l ey G. Sch n ei d er

Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl i a nce

I cert i f y t h a t t h i s d o c u m e n t w a s p r e p ared w i th W o rd Perfect X3 , an d t h at

,

acco rd i n g t o t hat p ro g ram ’ s w o r d

- c o u n t fu n ct io n , t h e s ect i o n s co v ered b y T E X

. R.

A P P

. P. 9 .4 (i )(1 ) co n t ai n 1 1 ,6 7 6 wo rd s

.

/ s / St an l ey G. Sch nei d er St an l ey G. Sch n ei d er

48