Opinion ID: 25424
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel’s Failure to Bring Jackson v. State to

Text: the Trial Court’s Attention Gallamore also complains that his counsel failed to call the trial court’s attention to Jackson v. State, 822 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Jackson, according to Gallamore, permits counsel to examine jurors “extensively” during voir dire about their ability to obey an instruction forbidding consideration of parole. Gallamore contends that Jackson should have been cited when the trial court stopped defense counsel from questioning a potential juror further about the juror’s understanding of Texas 13 parole law. Gallamore attempts to establish prejudice by arguing that if Jackson has been cited to the court and applied, then counsel would have been able to question more extensively and strike for cause any venire members who had reservations about issuing a life sentence for fear of early parole. Gallamore’s reliance on Jackson is misplaced. Jackson explains that if a potential juror is “shown to be unable to disregard parole in determining the punishment issues, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause.” 822 S.W.2d at 27. However, Jackson does not stand for the proposition that jurors must be extensively questioned about their understanding of parole during voir dire. In fact, on direct appeal of Gallamore’s conviction, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals indicated that “extensive” questioning is inappropriate, explaining that “a voir dire inquiry which predicates a parole question with a legal description of the attributes of a life sentence vis a vis parole, is not a proper query.” Gallamore v. State, No. 71,856 (Tex. Crim. App. December 13, 1995); see also, Howard v. Texas, 941 S.W.2d 102, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (en banc) (holding the same). Where a petitioner’s argument related to the failure of counsel to raise a case lacks merit, counsel’s failure to raise the case is not prejudicial. Neal v. Cain, 141 F.3d 207, 214-15 (5th Cir. 1998). Even if Gallamore is correct in his assertion that Jackson should have been raised, defense counsel is not obliged to 14 raise every non-frivolous issue in order to offer effective assistance. Counsel’s actions during voir dire are viewed as trial strategy and do not form the basis for an ineffective assistance claim unless the voir dire strategy is so unreasonable that it “permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.” Teague v. Scott, 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995). Counsel’s failure to raise Jackson does not establish a “reasonable probability of a different result” that “undermines confidence in the result” of Gallamore’s trial. West v. Johnson, 92 F.3d 1385, 1400 (5th Cir. 1996). Counsel’s failure to raise Jackson does not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome that undermines confidence in the verdict. The state court’s finding that counsel did conduct extensive voir dire and its conclusion rejecting prejudice from the failure to cite Jackson reasonably apply Federal law.