Court Opinion

ID: 9765618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:10:37.079383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:11.634253
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
BAIRD, Judge.
A jury convicted appellant of murder and assessed punishment at confinement for life and a ten thousand dollar fine. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 19.02. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Craig v. State, 783 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1989). Appellant presents one ground for review. We will remand.
The Court of Appeals found eight instances of “deficient performance by trial counsel.” Craig, 783 S.W.2d at 626. The court noted:
None of these incidents can be attributable to colorable tactical decision. Nor are they independent, isolated instances of professional lapse. Nor are they deficient from a purely retrospective vantage point. [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 694 (1984).]
Admittedly, our immediate impression was that these deficiencies would necessitate reversal. Upon closer analysis, however, we have concluded that in fact Appellant has not satisfied the second prong of the Strickland test under which he must show that the deficiencies in trial representation prejudiced his defense.
The Court of Appeals divided the eight instances of deficient performance into two groups, those which occurred at the guilt/innocence phase and those which occurred at the punishment phase. The Court then applied the Strickland test to both categories. Craig, 783 S.W.2d at 626-627.
Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals utilized the wrong standard to review the effectiveness of counsel during the punishment phase of the trial.1
The Strickland test is the proper standard to gauge the effectiveness of counsel at the guilt/innocence phase of a non-capital trial and at the guilt/innocence and punishment phases of a capital murder trial. Boyd v. State, 811 S.W.2d 105, 109 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). Strickland requires a two part analysis:
(1) Did the attorney’s performance fail to constitute “reasonably effective assistance,” i.e., did the defense attorney’s representation fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) if so, was there a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different?
Walker, 111 S.W.2d at 430.
However, we apply the test announced in Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 *130(Tex.Cr.App.1980), when analyzing the effectiveness of counsel during the punishment phase of non-capital offenses. Ex parte Walker, 794 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), dealt with an ineffective assistance of counsel error which affected the punishment phase of a non-capital offense. This Court stated that
the standard for determining whether applicant suffered ineffective assistance of counsel is found in Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), rather than Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)....]. Ex parte Walker, 777 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Ex parte Cruz, 739 S.W.2d 53, 58 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
Walker, 794 S.W.2d at 36-37.2 Therefore, the test for effectiveness of counsel in the punishment phase of a non-capital offense is, first, whether counsel was reasonably likely to render effective assistance, and second, whether counsel reasonably rendered effective assistance. Ex parte Walker, 794 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Tex.Cr.App.1990) (quoting Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d at 514, n. 4 [sic, actually note 14]). Therefore, the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the Strickland test when analyzing the effectiveness of counsel during the punishment phase of appellant’s trial.
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to reconsider appellant’s claims of ineffectiveness of counsel during the punishment phase in light of Ex parte Duffy, supra.

. Specifically, appellant's Ground for Review states:
After finding eight instances of deficiencies of trial counsel, the Court of Appeals erred in its determination that an insufficient showing of prejudice had been made for appellant to prevail in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

. Note that the two Ex parte Walker cites are distinct cases.