Court Opinion

ID: 9676449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:50.132045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.699659
License: Public Domain

HOLLIS HORTON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the court’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s judgment. However, I disagree with the decision to not further address defense counsel’s false statements to this Court regarding the trial court proceedings.
The record before us reflects that defendant’s counsel, Joseph R. Willie II, filed a brief in this Court in which he argued that there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to support his client’s two convictions because: “[a]s remarkable as it may seem, the State never introduced the Defendant’s judicial confession, written waiver of rights, the Presentence Investigation and/or stipulations of evidence and the trial court did not admit same in the above-referenced cause numbers.” In his brief, Defendant’s counsel requested that we reverse and acquit his client in these two cases as a result of the State’s failure to introduce evidence.
The State’s attorney then caused the record to be supplemented with additional items not contained in the record originally filed with this Court. Afterward, the State’s attorney filed a brief and responded to Houston’s legal and factual sufficiency argument by stating: “This is an unmitigated and blatant he on the part of Appellant’s counsel and in fact Appellant’s judicial confessions were indeed introduced into evidence in the presence of Appellant’s counsel.”
Subsequently, in his reply brief, Houston withdrew the issue. The supplemented record further demonstrates that Mr. Willie was Houston’s attorney in the trial court and that he was present when the State introduced Houston’s judicial confessions into evidence. In his response to the State’s request to supplement the record, Mr. Willie stated that he “was never made aware that such a record existed.”
From the state of the record, it is reasonable to infer that Mr. Willie, believing that a record of the guilty plea proceeding did not exist, represented to this court a false fact concerning the State’s alleged failure to introduce his client’s judicial confession and only decided to recant when faced with a record showing what had actually occurred. While Mr. Willie’s withdrawal of the issue might be grounds to mitigate his misrepresentation, I disagree that withdrawing the issue alone warrants no further proceedings.
Lawyer’s “should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who *615serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.” Tex. Disoiplinary R. Prof’l Conduct preamble ¶ 4, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G. app. A (Vernon 2005). Rule 3.03 of the Rules of Professional Conduct require that a lawyer not “knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.” Tex. DisciplinaRy R. Prof’l Conduct 3.03(a)(1). In my opinion, further proceedings are warranted to determine whether Mr. Willie made misrepresentations to the court knowingly. I disagree with the court’s conclusion that as a court we will not proceed further on the issue.