LLY LIKELY TO RENDER AND RENDERING REASONABALLY EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE" MC 'KENNA V. ELLIS, 280 f. 2d 592 (5 CIR.1961) as Quoted approvingly by the court
Page 9 of 11
in in CARAWAY V. STATE 417 S.W.2d 159, 162 (TEX-.CR. APP. 1967).
' * Three, A LEGAL DUTY AN AT'IORNEY GNES TO HIS CLIENT IS NOT TO BE BREACHED BY RETAINED COUNSEL NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, AN APPOINTED COUNSEL. APPLICANT HARRISON CITES": CUYLER V. SULLIVAN, SUPRA, _PUT AN END TO THE "DOUBLE STANDARD" EMANTING FROM THE REI'AINED-APPOINTED DICHOT()IVIY, AS SI`ATED BY MR. JUSTICE POWELL THE RAT_IONALE ls vlz; sEE Id. AT _U.s.__. 100 s.ct. AT 1716, ~cITED FRGM (607 S.W.2d 507). . l l
_APPLICANT HARRISON (CITES 607 S.W.2d 507) * 515, WE MAY ASSUME WI'I'H CONFI-` DENCE THAT MOSI' COUNSEL WHETHER RET_AIN_ED OR APPOINTED WILL PRO'I'ECT THE RIGH'I_`S OF AN ACCUSED, BUT _EXPERIENCE TEACHES THAT, IN SOME CASES, RETAINED CGJ'NSEL WILL_ NOI' PROVIDE ADEQUATE. REPRESENTATION. *516 APPLICANT HARRISON CITES CUYER V. SULLIVAN SUPRA: n THE VITAL GUARANTEE OF THE SIX'I'H AMENDMENT WOULD STAND FOR LI'I'TLE IF THE OF'I'EN .UNINFORMED DECISION TO RETAIN A PARTICULAR LAWYER COULD REDUCE OR FORFEIT THE DEFE[\]DANT'S `ENTITLMEINT, 'IO CONSTITUTIONAL PRUI'ECI"- ION.
APPLICANT HARRISON (clTES As: 607 S.w.2d`507) [4] Ex PARTE EWING, SUPRA IS BARELY~ 'IWO YEARS ,OLD' AND CUYLER 'V. SULLIVAN SUPRA, NOT EVEN A 'IODDLER. UNTIL FURTHER EXPERIENCE TEA(ZIiES O'IHERWISE WE WILL APPLY HERE AND CONTINUE TO USE 'IHE STANDARD OF' "REASONABALLY EFFECI'IVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL," 'IO TEST ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION " AFFORDED AN ACCUSED BY REI`AINED AS WELL AS APPOINTED COUNSEL WHEN THE PERFORMANCE IS 'IO BE JUDGED 'BY 'IHE SIX'I'H AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL MADE APPLICABLE 'IO THE STATES _BY THE FOURTEENTH AMEl\IDME[\IT-ALS_O BY OUR ONN "RIGHT "I'O BE I-IEARD" PROVISION OF ARTICLE 1 SECI'ION 10, BILL OF RIGHTS, CONSTITUTION OF 'I'EXAS [FN 17] .' '
[FN 17], THE "REASONABLE COMPEFENCE" TEST PRoPoSED BY oUR BROTHE:R RoBERTs LAcKs_ APPEAL- AT , THIS TIME FoR THE LANGUAGE oF THE SUPRmE COURT wAS SPOKEN7 IN A coNTEX'J? oF ADVICE.oF GOUNSEL THAT Hls cLIEl\yr ENTER A GUILITY PLEA. QUR' CONCERN HERE IS WITH .`A BROADER GOURSE OF CONDUCT THAN' COUNSELING A PlEA: WE MUST JUDGE A FULL SCOPE_ OF ASSISTANCE-REPRESENTATION, PERFORMANCE, DELIVERY FOR EFFECI'IVENES_S ' RA'I'HER THAN ADEQUACY OF ABILITY -OR vCAPACITY 'I`O ADVISE. THE STANDZ-\`RDv WE RETAIN,`.MANDATES.'AN EXAMINATION, BOTH .OF COMPEI'ENCE, "LIKELY TO RENDER," _AND OF ASSISTANCE, "AND RENDERING" IN DEI`ERMINING EFFECI`IVENESS 0F coUNSE`L. l ' _
A Criminal Defense lawyer must have firm command of the facts of the case
'as well as Governing haw before he can Render Reasonabally effective assist- ance to his client-in' or out of.the court room FlORES V. STATE 576 S.W.2d 632, 634 (TEX'. CR. APP. 1978); EX PARTE EWING( SUPRA _AT 947; SEE- ALS_O HERRING
Page 10 of 11'
V} ESTELLE 491 F.2d 125, 128, (5 CIR.1974); CARAWAY V. BETO, 421 F.2d 636, 637 (5 cIR. 1970); wlLLIAMs v. BE'Io 345 F.2d 698, 70'5, (5 cIR. 1965); In The-- Seninal .Decision of POWELL V} ALABAMA