Court Opinion

ID: 9640572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:08:35.675007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.740680
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
I join wholeheartedly the opinion of the Presiding Judge wherein he dissents from the opinion of the majority. To hold from the meager record before us that there was no tactical reason for the attorney to advise the appellant to select the jury for punishment ignores the reality of what is present. Obviously, from the references in the record to an intervening arrest, there was quite probably a reason to select the jury rather than the judge who, with the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation, could very well have lived up to the reputation the parties have attempted to give him.
We are not here concerned with whether North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) has application. The judge did not impose a longer prison sentence than the appellant originally received. The jury did. Thus we need not address any issue of vindictiveness but need only consider the effective assistance of counsel issue. In light of the picture that has been painted, it is quite probable that appellant received most effective assistance of counsel if in fact there were intervening factors which could have been brought to the attention of a judge which would not otherwise be admissible pursuant to Article 37.07 V.A.C.C.P.
Further, since the majority has now concluded that the most this appellant could receive is fifteen years, and since the minimum is fifteen years, why do they not opt *518to merely reform the judgment to reflect, as they determined, the only punishment available?
What concerns me more, however, is whether, upon retrial, counsel will be determined to be ineffective if he advises appellant to choose the judge to assess punishment knowing that a reversal of any conviction will be automatic if he chooses a jury and that jury assess any punishment greater than fifteen years. To allow the manipulation of our system as has been done by this appellant is to ignore our duties as judges both to the law and to the administration of justice.
For these additional reasons, I dissent.