Court Opinion

ID: 9653342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:44:38.432465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.231438
License: Public Domain

*949ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I join the conclusion that this conviction must be reversed for the underlying factual events relied on by Judge Roberts in his dissent. I differ from his conclusion only in that I would hold those facts support a finding of prosecutorial misconduct, instead of ineffective assistance of counsel. The root cause for the miscarriage in this case was not ineffectiveness on the part of appellant’s counsel; it was the misrepresentation made by the prosecutor. Cf. Ruth v. State, 522 S.W.2d 517. No cloud should be cast on appellant’s counsel for placing reliance on the representations of another professional. This conviction should be reversed for prosecutorial misconduct. I dissent to its affirmance.
CLINTON, J., joins this opinion.