Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:I.R. was adjudicated delinquent for committing an assault and was placed on probation until his eighteenth birthday. In his sole issue on appeal, he asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. An attorney has a professional duty to present all available testimony in support of the client’s defense. To fulfill this duty, counsel should arrange for the issuance of subpoenas on individuals whom counsel intends to call as witnesses at trial. an attorney has a duty to make an independent investigation of the facts supporting the defense. This includes the responsibility to seek out and interview potential witnesses. Defense counsel acknowledged at the new-trial hearing that I.R.’s mother told him about Hayden. But Hayden’s testimony at that hearing reveals that he did not meet defense counsel until after the adjudication hearing. The court concludes that counsel was deficient in failing to seek out and interview potential witnesses. I.R.’s motion for new trial alleged that Roger Hayden was unavailable at the time of the adjudication hearing and that he would testify to I.R.’s actual innocence. To be entitled to a new trial on this ground, I.R. had to prove: 1. he did not know of Hayden’s potential testimony at the time of the adjudication hearing; 2. his failure to discover the potential testimony was not due to a want of due diligence; 3. the testimony would probably bring about a different result in another trial; and 4. the testimony is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral or impeaching. State v. Balderas, 915 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). Both the prosecutor and the trial judge focused on the first two requirements at the new-trial hearing. During cross-examination of Hayden, the prosecutor uncovered that I.R.’s mother knew that I.R. was with Hayden on the day in question and that Hayden was not subpoenaed for the adjudication hearing. Likewise, the judge asked Hayden several questions to determine why he did not appear for the adjudication hearing. In Armstrong v. Manzo, a father was not given notice of proceedings to adopt his child until after the adoption decree was entered. 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Upon learning of the adoption, the father promptly filed a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion. This court affirmed, holding that the failure to notify the father of the adoption proceedings was cured by the hearing on the motion for new trial, when the father had an opportunity to present evidence as to why the adoption should not occur. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The court noted that if the father had been given proper notice, the parties seeking the adoption would have had the burden of proving grounds for the adoption. But at the hearing on the motion for new trial, the father had the burden of disproving grounds for the adoption. Therefore, the court held that the father could be accorded due process only by granting his motion for new trial, so that the trial court could “consider the case anew.” According to the court, “Only that would have wiped the slate clean [and] [o]nly that would have restored the [father] to the position he would have occupied had due process of law been accorded to him in the first place.” Based on Armstrong and the record in this case, the court cannot conclude that the failure of counsel to secure Hayden’s presence at the adjudication hearing was cured by Hayden’s testimony at the new-trial hearing. Instead, the court concludes that there is a reasonable probability � i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome � that the result of the adjudication proceeding would have been different if counsel had subpoenaed Hayden. OPINION:Larsen, J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.