Court Opinion

ID: 9769511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:53:06.662896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:52.916306
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Mitchell is not entitled to a reversal of the judgment on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel because a “preponderance of the evidence” in the record does not establish “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different absent the deficient conduct.’” Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 495 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1106, 116 S.Ct. 1323, 134 L.Ed.2d 475 (1996) (quoting Washington v. State, 771 S.W.2d 537, 545 (Tex. Crim.App.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3229, 106 L.Ed.2d 578 (1989)). To the contrary, a preponderance of the evidence, including Russell’s immediate identification of Mitchell and the seven-minute videotape of the robbery, establishes the contrary. I therefore respectfully dissent.