Court Opinion

ID: 9516754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:51:16.042594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:07.751965
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by:
SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice,
joined by Justice PAUL W. GREEN.
Now, as on original submission, 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. 1328, 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)). Now, as on original submission, a preponderance of the evidence clearly establishes the absence of prejudice. As Chief Judge McCormick wrote for a unanimous court:
Appellant was charged with using a firearm during a robbery at a convenience store. The victim of the robbery identified appellant from a photo spread the day after the robbery. She identified him at trial. She also testified that during the robbery appellant raised his shirt which revealed a gun tucked into the waistband of his pants. The prosecution introduced into evidence a videotape from the convenience store clearly showing appellant committing the robbery and raising his shirt.
*590Mitchell v. State, 989 S.W.2d 747, 747 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Because the majority errs in “finding” prejudice on this record, I dissent.