1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TOF TE XAS FORT WORTH NOS. 2- 09 - 32 8- CR 2- 09- 329- CR K UR T I S E VAN K I NG AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA L DI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt roduc t i on A p p e l l a n t K u rt i s E v a n K i n g rec e i v e d d e ferred adj u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty s u p e r v i s i o n a ft e r

p l e a d i n g g u i l ty i n s e p a ra t e c a s e s t o t h e fto f a fi re a r m an d cr i m i nal m i sc hi ef. He app ea l s f rom t he j udgm ents adj udi ca t i ng hi s gui l tan d se n ten c i n g h i m to tw o y e a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t i n ea c h ca se an d as se rts i n tw o2

i ss uest hathi s cou ns el provi ded i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e a tt he revo ca t i on h e a r i n g . We a f

fi r m. I I . Bac kground A ppe l l antpl ea ded gui l ty t o t heftof a fi rea r m on A ugus t1 , 2 008 , and t he tr i a l co u rtd e ferred adj u d i c a ti o n an d p l a c e d h i m o n fou r ye a rs’ co m m u n i ty su per vi si on. O n Sept em ber 22, 2008 , A ppe l l antw as di agn os ed as bi pol ar an d pl ac ed on bi pol ar

m edi ca t i on. O n Sept em be r 26, 2008 , t he St at e fi l ed a p e ti ti o n to p roc e e d to a dj u d i c a ti o n an d fi l e d a n a m e n d e d p e ti ti o n to p roc e e d to adj udi cat i on on N ovem b e r 2 6 , 20 08 . The am ended pet i t i on al l eged t hat Appe l l a nth a d vi ol a t e d t he t e r m s o f h i s c om m un i ty s up e r vi s i on b y ( 1) com m i t t i ng t he offense o f d r i vi ng und er

the i nfl uence of

al coho l o n S ept em ber 16, 2008 , ( 2) c om m i t t i ng t he o f fe ns e of

pub l i c i nt ox i c a t i on o n Se pt e m be r 19, 200 8, ( 3) co ns um i ng a l coh ol on Se pt em ber 11, 19, an d 23, 2008 , ( 4) fai l i ng t o repo rtt o hi s com m uni ty s upe r vi si on of

fi ce r i n O ct obe r 200 8, and ( 5) fai l i ng to p a y a s u p e rvi sion fee an d res ti tu ti o n in O c to b e r 2 0 0 8 . H o w e v e r, the S tate di s m i s s e d t he a m e nd e d pe t i t i on t o proc e e d t o a dj ud i c a t i on on De c e m be r 15, 200 8, be ca us e Appel l ant ’ s com m uni ty s upe r vi si on of

fi ce r fel tt hatA ppe l l ant shoul d be gi ven anot her chance. A ppel l ant ’ s com m uni ty super vi sion o ffi cer rec o m m e n d e d tha t A p p e l l a n t be p l a c e d in to a l o n g -t e rm tre a tm e n t ce n ter to com bathi s su bs t anc e a bus e probl em s. The t r i al cou rt ’ s order se ndi ng Appel l ant3

to a trea tm e n t ce n ter an d m o d i fyin g t h e co n d i ti o n s o f his co m m u n i ty su per vi si on requ i red t hathe obe y a l l o f t he t rea t m entce nt er’ s rul es an d re g u l a ti o n s . A ppe l l antpl ea ded gui l ty t o c r i m i nal m i sc hi ef on J anu ar

y 30, 20 0 9, an d th e tr i a l c o u rt d e ferred a dj u d i c a ti o n a n d p l a c e d h i m o n thre e y e a rs’ co m m u n i ty su per vi si on. The t erm s of A ppe l l ant ’ s com m uni ty s upe r vi si on requ i red t hathe s u c c e s s fu l l y c o m p l e te s u b s ta n c e a b u s e tre a tm e n t. O n Fe bruar

y 2, 2009 , A ppe l l anten t ered i nt o a res i den t i al t rea t m ent p rog ram at L u b b o c k C o u n ty C o m m u n i ty C o rre c tio n s F a c i l i ty. A co m m u n i ty super vi si on offi cer

from t he t rea tm e ntcent er t est i fi ed t hatA ppel l antvi ol at ed t h e t re a t m e n tc e n t e r’s ru le s o n F e b ru a ry 8 , 2 0 0 9 , b y fa ilin g t o t a k e h is m e d i c a ti o n ; o n M a rch 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , b y l o a n i n g a c o m p a c t d i sc to an o th e r re side n t; on M a y 28, 2009, by m a k i ng i na pp rop r i a t e co m m e nts dur i ng cl a s s ; on J un e 9, 200 9, by bei ng i nvol ved i n a phys i ca l al t erca t i on w i t h a not her res i den t ; an d on June 16, 20 0 9 , b y pi ck i ng on an ot her res i den tan d m ak i ng fun of hi m . The t reat m entcent er

unsuccessful l y di scharged A ppel l antfrom t he p rogram aft er th e J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ru l e s v i o l a ti o n . A fte r th e f i rs t tw o ru l e s v i o l a ti o n s b u t b e fo re t he l as t t hree rul esvi ol at i ons , A ppe l l antw as t ak en of f of hi s bi pol ar

m edi ca t i on b y a d o c to r fo l l o w i n g a n i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h h e fa i n te d a n d h i t h i s h e a d .4

The St at e fi l ed a p et i t i on t o proce ed t o adj udi ca t i on i n bot h c as es on J une 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , a l l e g i n g tha t A p p e l l a n t ha d v io late d the term s o f his co m m u n i ty s u p e rv is io n b y b e in g u n s u c c e s s fu ll y d is c h a rg e d fro m th e tre a tm e n t c e n te r. In add i t i on t o t he abo ve evi den ce , t he t r i al cou rt hea rd t es t i m ony b y o ne com m uni ty s upe r

vi si on of

fi ce r t hatdoc um ent ati on from co uns el ors and t ea che rs att he fac i l i ty s ugge st ed t hatA ppe l l ant ’ s det r i m ent al beh avi or w asnot di rect l y rel at ed t o hi s m edi cat i on use and another co m m uni ty super

vi si on offi cer th a t he d i d n o t b e li e v e A p p e l l a n t co u l d su c c e ss fu l l y co m p l e te c o m m u n i ty super vi si on. A ft er

condu ct i ng t he evi denti ar y hear i ng, t he t r i al courtfoun d t hat A ppel l anthad vi ol at ed t he t er m s of hi s com m uni ty super vi si on i n e a ch case, a dj u d i c a ted h i m g u i l ty o f e a c h o ffen se , a n d se n ten c e d h i m i n ea c h ca se to tw o y e a rs ’ c o n fin e m e n tin s t a t e ja il, w it h t h e s e n t e n c e s t o ru n c o n c u r re n t ly . T h is app ea l fol l ow ed. I I I . A ppl i cabl e Law To es t abl i sh i nef

fec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , t he app el l antm us ts how by a p repo nde ranc e o f t he evi den ce t hathi s cou ns el ’ s repres ent at i on fel l be l ow t h e s t a n d a rd o f

p re v a ilin g p ro fe s s io n a l n o r m s a n d t h a tt h e re is a re a s o n a b le proba bi l i ty t hat , but for cou ns el ’ s defi ci enc y, t he res ul tof t he t r i al w oul d ha ve b e e n d i ffe re n t. See St r i ck l and v. W as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 ); S a l i n a s v . S tate , 1 63 S. W . 3d 734 , 740 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp.5

2 0 0 5 ); M a l l e tt v . S tate , 6 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 , 6 2 – 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); Thom ps on v . S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); H ernan dez v. S tate , 988 S . W . 2d 770, 770 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1999 ) . The sec on d prong o f St r i ck l and req u i res a s how i ng t hatcounsel ’ s errors w ere so ser i ous t hatt hey d e p ri v e d the d e fen d a n t of a fai r t ri a l , i .e., a t ria l w i th a re l i a b l e res u l t. S tri c k l a n d , 466 U . S. at6 87, 1 04 S. Ct . at2064 . I n ot her w ords , t he app el l ant m u st sh ow t he re i s a reaso na bl e p rob ab i l i ty tha t , bu tfor cou ns el’s u n p rofe ss i o n a l e rro rs, th e res u l t of th e p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. See i d. at 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. at 2 0 6 8 . A rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty i s a p rob a b i l i ty s u fficie n t to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e o u tc o m e . I d. The ul t i m at e f ocu s of our i nqui r

y m us tbe on t he funda m ent al fai r nes s of t he proce edi ng i n w hi ch t he re s u l t i s b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . I d. a t 6 9 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 7 0 . I V . Di sc us si on A ppe l l antargue s t hathi s t r i al co uns el rend ered i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e b y fa ilin g t o c a ll a n e x p e rt w it n e s s a t t h e re v o c a t io n h e a r in g t o t e s t if y t h a th is ru le vi ol at i ons w ere m os tl i ke l y du e t o hi s bei ng t ak en of f of hi s bi pol ar

m edi ca t i on a n d b y fa ilin g t o o f

fe r h is m e d ic a l re c o rd s in a m a n n e r t h a tw o u ld e n s u re t h e ir adm i ssi bi l i ty. H e cont ends t hathe recei ved t he m axi m um sent ence i n each case butt hathi s sent ences w oul d have been sho rt e r h a d counsel rendered e f fe c t iv e a s s is t a n c e . H o w e v e r , A p p e lla n th a s n o ts h o w n t h a ta re a s o n a b le2 ... A ppe l l antdoe s notex pl ai n how t he adm i ss i on of hi s m edi ca l rec ords m i ght have l ed t he t r i al courtt o assessa l esser sent ence. 6 probab i l i ty exi st s t hathi s puni shm entw oul d have b e en di f ferenthad t r i al c o u n s e l d o n e a s h e c o n te n d s s h e s h o u ld h a v e . See St r i ck l and , 46 6 U . S . at 694, 104 S. Ct . a t2068 . The rec ord refl ec t s t hatA ppe l l antt ol d t he t r i al c ou rtt hathe co ul d not bl am e a l l of

hi s vi ol at i ons on n ott ak i ng hi s m edi ca t i on , thatA ppe l l ant com m i t t ed tw o rul esvi ol at i ons w hi l e t ak i ng hi s m edi ca t i on, an d t hatA ppe l l ant used dr ugs and al coho l w hi l e o n com m uni ty super vi si on bo t h before and aft er t a k in g b ip o la r

m e d ic a t io n . A n d a lt h o u g h A p p e lla n t ’s c o u n s e l d id n o ts o lic it te s ti m o n y fro m a n e x p e rt w i tn e s s c o n c e rn i n g th e e ffe c t, i f a n y , o f A p p e l l a n t’s m edi ca t i on on hi s beh avi or , A ppe l l ant ’ s cou ns el di d pres entev i den ce t hrough A ppel l ant , hi s m ot her , and hi s grandfat her t hatA ppel l anti s happy, m ore st abl e, a n d fam i l y o ri e n ted w h e n ta k i n g h i s m e d i c a ti o n a n d irri tab l e , e d g y , a n d “a n x i e ty r i dde n” w hen nott ak i ng hi s m edi ca t i on. M oreover , at t he m ot i on for new t r i al 2 hear i ng, t he t r i al courtrecei ved t he l et t er from A ppel l ant ’ s doct or opi ni ng t hat A p p e l l a n t’ s fa i l u re to co m p l e te th e tre a tm e n t p rog ram “w a s dire c tl y rel a ted to hi s bei ng t ak en of

f t he m edi ca t i on t hathad been st abi l i z i ng hi s m ood, ” butt he t r i al co urtde ni ed A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f or ne w t r i al . Thus , A ppe l l antha s not show n t hatt here i s a reasonabl e probab i l i ty t hat , butfor co u nsel ’ s al l eged7

u n p rofe ss i o n a l erro rs, t h e res u l t of th e p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. S e e S tri 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 ; se e a l so B u rru s v . S tate , 2 6 6 S .W .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t .) (o v e r ru lin g c la im of i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e f

or fai l ure t o de m ons t rat e rea so nab l e p roba bi l i ty of di f ferentpuni sh m ent h ad co uns el ac t ed di f ferent l y) . W e o verrul e e ac h of A ppel l ant ’ s i ssues. V . Concl us i on H avi ng ov er ru l ed each of A ppel l ant ’ s tw o i ssues, w e af fi r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent s.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: GA RD N ER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2010