Court Opinion

ID: 9643733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:39:16.09062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:17.810736
License: Public Domain

MICHOL O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the panel’s resolution of point of error one. In point of error one, appellant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt-innocence stage of his trial because his counsel did not secure the attendance of two alibi witnesses. I agree.
Appellant contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel did not request out-of-state subpoenas for two alibi witnesses, José Manual Galar-za and José Baltazar.
Appellant’s trial counsel, James Walker, should have issued subpoenas for the alibi witnesses, even though the witnesses promised to appear, and Walker thought they would appear without subpoenas. In fact, Walker admitted he should have issued subpoenas and that he meant to. *12Walker testified that his failure to issue subpoenas was not a trial strategy.
The majority admits that Walker negated trial strategy as a reason for not requesting subpoenas. In spite of that, the majority says it is unwilling to characterize as “error” Walker’s failure to issue the subpoenas. The question is: Why is the majority unwilling to find it was error when the attorney admitted it was error? It is hard to challenge reasoning that lacks reason.