UNDER THE TEX.CODE OF CRIM.PROC.
ART.36.14. Attorney MADE NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTION OBJECTING OR REQUEST
ING A TRIAL COURT CHARGE. THIS WAS CONSIDERED AN ERROR PER SE THE
STATES BRIEF.(pg.5)
2. H THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS THE RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL. McMANN V. RICHARDSON,397 U.S.759,771,n.14,90 S.CT.1441,
1449,n.14,25 L.ED.2d.763(1970). AS ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE NOW HELD,THE PROPER STAND
ARD FOR ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE IS THAT OF REASONABLY EFFECTIVE ASSIS
TANCE. SEE TRAPNELL V. UNITED STATES,725 F.2d,at 151-152.
SO THE BENCHMARK FOR JUDGING ANY CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVENESS MUST BE
WHETHER COUNSEL'S CONDUCT SO UNDERMINED THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF
THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS THAT THE TRIAL CANNOT BE RELIED ON AS HAV
ING PRODUCED A JUST RESULT. STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON,466 U.S. 668,
104 S.CT. 2052,80 L.Ed.2d. 674.
APPELLANT S TRIAL COUNSELS FAILURE TO REQUEST THE JURY CHARGE IN
STRUCTION OF THE TESTOMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE WITNESS WAS OF THE DE
GREE OF HARM, SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS ENOUGH TO BE CLASSED AS EGREGIOUS!' APPELLANTS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS MADE CLEARLY AND MORE PER
SUASIVE BY THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY APPELLANTS BROTHER,FRANK AN
DERSON,WHO WAS THE CO-DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.V.C.C.P. art.38.14. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN APPELLANTS TRIAL DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY WAS ESSENTIAL IN HELP MAKING THE STATES CASE
AGAINST THE APPELLANT.HAD THE JURY BEEN INFORMED THAT IT COULD NOT
CONVICT APPELLANT WITHOUT CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
APPELLANTS BROTHER FRANK,THERES A REASONABLE PROBILITY A RATIONAL JURY WUOLD NOT HAVE CONVICTED APPELLANT.SEE AND cf.SAUNDERS V.
STATE,817 S.W.2d.688 (TEX.CR.APP.1991). FRANK ANDERSON WAS CONNECTED TO THE OFFENSE COMMITTED AND CHARGED. APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED THE APPELLANT BY FILING AN ANDERS BRIEF
WHEN IN FACT APPELLANT HAD A VIABLE AND APPARENT ERROR IN HIS PRO-
CEEDINDS. THE LIKELYHOOD OF A COMPETENT LAWYER COMMITTING THIS SAME
MISTAKE SHUOLD BE CONSIDERED SLIM TO NONE.(emphasis ray own)
WHEREFORE,PREMISES,CONSIDERED, APPELLANT PRAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT
GRANTS THIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND REVERSE AND RE
MAND APPELLANTS CONVICTION TO SHOW AN AQUITTAL,NEW PUNISHMENT AND
/OR NEW TRIAL AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED
TO. IT IS SO PRAYED.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Q JJjt (jI fi^jyjLte at*- )NE D.ANDERSON #1944026 BILL CLEMENTS UNIT 9601 SPUR 591 AMARILLO,TEXAS 79107
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HAS BEEN SSNT TO THE STATE PRO
SECUTING ATTORNEY,Mr. JEFFREY VAN HORN AT,P.O.BOX 12405,AUSTIN
TEXAS 78711,AND THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT,P.O.BOX
12308,CAPITOL STATION,AUSTIN,TX. 78711 BY U.S.MAIL,POSTAGE PREPAID,
FIRST CLASS. ON THIS THE /*-/ DAY OF //u ftLAjfaoi5.
jf {2/i^.elusiW^ TYRONE D.ANDERSON #1944026
4. APPENDEX
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00074-CR
TYRONE DENARD ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 29512
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley APPENDEX
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Tyrone Denard Anderson guilty of possessionof cocaine in an amountof one
gram or more but less than