Court Opinion

ID: 9761883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:57:49.022858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:27.203193
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority first acknowledges that under Duffy1 we must review the “totality of the representation” to determine if appellant was afforded “reasonably effective assistance of counsel.” The majority then ignores the “totality of the representation” of appellant and holds that a single error, the failure to object to one portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument, constituted per se ineffective assistance of counsel. In my opinion, the facts of this case do not support the holding that, because of a single failure to object during closing argument, appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law. Accordingly, I dissent.
The constitutional right to counsel does not mean errorless counsel or counsel whose competency is to be judged by hindsight. Ex parte Cruz, 739 S.W.2d 53, 58 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). The right to effective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase means counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Duffy, 607 S.W.2d at 514, n. 4. On appeal, in examining the totality of the representation, we must judge a full scope of assistance — representation, performance, de*192livery — for effectiveness. The standard mandates an examination both of competence, “likely to render,” and of assistance, “and rendering,” in determining effectiveness of counsel. Ex parte Walker, 794 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Duffy, 607 S.W.2d at 516, n. 17.
In the present case, the majority concludes appellant’s counsel failed the second part of the Duffy test — “and rendering reasonably effective assistance” — because of an isolated failure to object to closing argument.
The majority opinion sets out the portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument that concerns us. The jury charge included the same information about the parole laws that the prosecutor argued, except for his italicized statements. It is not error for the prosecutor to quote or paraphrase the jury charge, even if the charge instructs the jury regarding parole laws. Whiting v. State, 797 S.W.2d 45, 48 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Jones v. State, 641 S.W.2d 545, 550 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). In the present case, the prosecutor did not contradict the court’s charge. He told the jury they “can’t guess or estimate anything about good conduct time or parole”. He did not make a definite statement about good time credit — rather he gave a hypothetical, “let’s say you get three days credit for every one you serve.” I agree with our assessment of the prosecutor’s jury argument in ovar first opinion in this case, before remand:
[U]nlike the objectionable arguments [in other eases], the prosecutor’s comment spoke to a constitutionally mandated jury instruction, did not state that good conduct time and parole would always operate to reduce a sentence by a certain amount, did not attempt to have the jury figure how the parole laws would operate in appellant’s case, and did not suggest a punishment to offset the parole law’s application or effect.
Valencia v. State, 891 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), rev’d, 946 S.W.2d 81 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).
I acknowledge that if the prosecutor meant for his hypothetical to be precisely accurate, rather than to be a broad-brush example to get the concept across, he made a mistake — a person could not become eligible for parole in two years on a 40-year sentence — rather it would take four years to become eligible for parole. Valencia, 891 S.W.2d at 657 n.l. The difference between two years and four years in such a hypothetical is de minimis. The fact that appellant’s counsel did not “catch” the mathematical error is nowhere near per se ineffective assistance.
In my opinion, the prosecutor’s argument does come dangerously close to crossing the statutory line of permissible argument; however, because of the hypothetical nature of the comments, a reasonable defense counsel hearing the argument in the courtroom could have concluded it fell short of urging the jury to consider how the parole law would actually be applied to appellant. The failure to object in such a situation is not per se ineffective assistance. See Davis v. State, 712 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.).

. Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).