Harrison v. State, 53426
Decision Date | 14 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 53426,53426 |
Citation | 552 S.W.2d 151 |
Parties | Jeremiah HARRISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appellant appeals from his conviction for possession of heroin. The jury assessed punishment at twenty years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The record reflects that appellant and his wife, Shirley, were tried jointly for the possession of heroin seized in a raid on their home by officers of the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff's Office and the Texas Department of Public Safety on October 3, 1973, pursuant to a search warrant. Appellant and his wife retained two attorneys to represent them.
Appellant contends in ten separate grounds of error that he failed to receive a fair trial because of ineffective assistance of his retained counsel in the trial court.
The constitutional right to counsel, whether counsel be appointed or retained, does not mean errorless counsel whose competency or adequacy of his representation is not to be judged ineffective by hindsight. Ex parte Prior, 540 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); see also, Duran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
The adequacy of an attorney's services must be gauged by the "totality of the representation"; therefore, we decline to take up each instance of ineffectiveness alleged in appellant's brief. Stutes v. State,530 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Williams v. State, 513 S.W.2d 54 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). The allegations of ineffective representation will be sustained only if they are firmly founded. Faz v. State, 510 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Effectiveness of retained counsel must be gauged by whether or not there was wilful conduct by retained counsel without a defendant's knowledge which amounts to a breach of legal duty. Ex parte Raley, 528 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Hunnicutt v. State, 531 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
As this Court wrote in Chatman v. State, 478 S.W.2d 91 (tex.cr.app.1972):
An attorney must appraise a case and do the best he can with the facts and the fact that other counsel might have tried the case differently does not show inadequate representation. Ex parte Prior, supra. See Rockwood v. State, 524 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and Witt v. State, 475 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). See also, United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1974).
We have carefully examined this very voluminous record and appellant's numerous allegations and cannot conclude there was ineffective assistance of counsel. This record does not support or reflect any wilful misconduct by an employed counsel without appellant's knowledge which amounts to a breach of the legal duty of an attorney. Trotter v. State, 471 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Even if we use the "reasonably effective assistance" standard of Ex parte Gallegos, 511 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we would reach the same result.
Nothing appears in the record to show any bad faith, insincerity or disloyalty toward appellant by his attorney. A good faith error or mistake, if any, made by retained counsel with honest and earnest purpose to serve his client cannot be the basis of a claim of reversible error. Mills v. State,483 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); see also, Popeko v. United States, 294 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1961).
With respect to appellant's allegation of a conflict of interest in his retained counsel representing both him and his wife, we find the language of Stutes, supra, controlling, wherein we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holland v. State
...Perkins, supra; Ex Parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Boles v. State, 598 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Harrison v. State, 552 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Allegations of ineffective assistance must be firmly founded to be sustained. Harrison v. State, supra; Faz v. State, 510 ......
-
Ex parte McWilliams
...be sustained only if it is firmly founded and the record affirmatively demonstrates counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Harrison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 552 S.W.2d 151. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in connection with petitioner's application. At that hearing, there was no evide......
-
Mercado v. State
...in appointed counsel cases. See Ex parte Gallegos, 511 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and cases there cited. See also Harrison v. State, 552 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In determining whether an accused has been denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fo......
-
Passmore v. State
...improper. However, the adequacy of a counsel's assistance is based upon the totality of the attorney's representation. Harrison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 552 S.W.2d 151. Thus, an isolated instance of a failure to object does not necessarily render counsel ineffective. Callaway v. State, Tex.Cr......