The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures that anyone accused of a crime in this country has the right to legal counsel of their choice—or to counsel appointed by the court for the indigent.
This right extends to the attorney in question's collateral obligation to provide effective legal assistance. When a defendant can’t afford to hire counsel, they have the right to an attorney through the public defense system. However, the system tends to be woefully understaffed due to a lack of financial resources, which can lead to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
If you are facing a criminal charge, bringing your strongest defense is key, and for that, you need the skilled legal counsel of an experienced Round Rock criminal defense attorney.
The American Bar Association’s Take on the Matter
In a 2022 report put out by the American Bar Association, the matter of ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the public defense system is summed up as follows:
Across the country, criminal courts are failing to meet the promise of equal justice under the law. As these failings are examined, increased attention is being paid to the obligation to provide effective assistance of counsel to all those accused of crimes and facing imprisonment who cannot afford private lawyers.
For far too long, public defenders have raised concerns that their caseloads do not permit them to give appropriate time and attention to each client.
Overwhelming caseloads force even excellent public defenders to cut corners. They must either triage, focusing on a select group of clients at the expense of the others, or they must spend less time than they should on every client’s case.
They cannot conduct full investigations, consult experts when appropriate, or adequately prepare motions and arguments. These conditions create a heightened risk of error.
In other words, the situation is very serious, and the legal results for you as a defendant can be dire.
When Counsel Is Considered Ineffective
Counsel qualifies as ineffective when the defendant is deprived of a fair trial because the attorney handling their case did so unreasonably, which typically means by either not devoting their full effort to the case or by performing incompetently.
Often, when the attorney in question is a public defender, they simply don’t have the time to devote to each of their cases. There can also, however, be a conflict of interests involved. Factors that Texas courts tend to consider when claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are made include all the following:
Whether or not the attorney had prior experience handling criminal cases
Whether the attorney applied strategic trial tactics in defense of the defendant
The degree to which the defendant was prejudiced – if at all – by the counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness
Whether the attorney’s ineffectiveness was due to matters beyond their control
A Recent Texas Case Involving a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In Ex Parte Hayes, a 2024 case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), Ms. Hayes was placed on community supervision after pleading guilty to a charge of serious bodily injury to a child. Within two months, Hayes was sentenced to 15 years in prison after violating the terms of her supervision.
While serving the state’s prison sentence, Hayes filed a habeas application – or a petition to the court to appear before the judge in relation to the lawfulness of her detention – alleging a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Her claim was based on the following two premises:
That her attorney failed to inform her that the child victim hadn’t suffered serious bodily injury
That her attorney failed to offer any evidence of a lesser charge than serious bodily injury to a child at her guilt adjudication hearing
The Trial Court’s Denial
The CCA remanded the orders back to the trial court twice, but the application was ultimately denied. The trial court’s reasoning behind the second denial was deemed faulty by the CCA, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, therefore, declined to rely on the trial court’s rulings in making its final determination on the matter.
From here, the CCA conducted its own analysis of Hayes’ claim of ineffective assistance. The attorney’s failure to inform Hayes that the child in question hadn’t suffered serious bodily injury was summed up as follows:
Before Applicant pled guilty, her attorney hired a medical expert, Dr. Stephen Nelson. Dr. Nelson wrote a report summarizing the victim’s medical records and the injuries and conditions they documented. His report did not express an opinion about SBI (serious bodily injury).
He testified by affidavit at the habeas stage that he had offered no opinion about SBI because he had not been asked for it or given its legal definition. After he was given the definition by habeas counsel, he concluded that the victim had suffered no SBI.
The primary concern from the CCA’s perspective was whether Hayes knew that the doctor who served as an expert witness in her case found that the involved child didn’t suffer serious bodily injury. Hayes claimed no knowledge, but the trial court found otherwise.
The secondary issue under consideration was whether Hayes would have gone to trial if she had known the doctor’s finding. Since the trial court didn’t believe she had any knowledge, it didn’t address this issue.
The First Remand
On first remand – or when the CCA first sent the matter back to the trial court – the trial court determined that Hayes’ attorney had informed her that the expert witness didn’t believe the child had suffered serious bodily injury. The CCA, however, found that this conclusion wasn’t supported by the record.
The Second Remand
On second remand – or when the CCA sent the matter back to the trial court for the second time – the matter was more specific. At this remand proceeding, Hayes’ attorney testified that she had been informed of the doctor’s findings prior to her guilty plea. In light of this testimony, the trial court denied relief for a second time.
The CCA, however, chose not to defer to the trial court’s ruling because it didn’t attach credibility to the attorney’s testimony that he’d properly informed Hayes of the finding related to the child not suffering serious bodily injury. The reasons given included the following:
The pre-plea report prepared by the medical expert did not mention serious bodily injury.
During the second, more detailed remand proceeding, Hayes’ attorney – who was under scrutiny – evaded the question that specifically asked him why he hadn’t questioned the medical expert about their reasoning for failing to include the SBI finding.
Instead of addressing the specific legal definition of SBI at this point, the attorney reported discussing the severity of the child’s injuries with the expert witness, which the CCA found evasive.
The CCA’s Finding
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the attorney engaged in false suggestion and that the trial court’s attachment of credibility to the attorney’s statements undermined its own conclusion that Hayes had been properly informed on the matter of the child’s serious bodily injury.
The CCA’s stinging rebuff to both the trial court and the attorney was – We find that (the defense counsel) did not tell Hayes about (the medical expert’s) no-SBI opinion.
The Two Prongs of Ineffective Assistance Claims
The first prong in an ineffective assistance claim is establishing a deficient performance by defense counsel, which the CCA accomplished. The second prong of the claim is whether or not that inefficient performance prejudiced the defendant.
In this case, the CCA found that the record supported Hayes’ claim that – if it hadn’t been for her attorney’s ineffective counsel, she would have gone to trial – where she had a good chance of acquittal on the matter of serious bodily injury and would have, as a result, faced a sentence that was far less harsh.
A New Trial Ordered
The CCA proceeded to reverse the conviction against Hayes and ordered a new trial. In this case, it’s not clear what led to the attorney’s deficiencies – whether he lacked the time necessary to thoroughly address the case and his client’s legal rights or whether he simply was in error.
What is startlingly clear, however, is that the defense counsel attempted to dodge the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and was less interested in ensuring that his clients’ rights were well supported than in bolstering his own credibility, which ultimately backfired.
The Right Attorney for You
If you are facing a criminal charge in Texas, the right attorney for you will check all the following boxes:
They have the time necessary to dedicate to your case.
They make you feel heard, and they ensure that you understand the legal process as you move through it.
They discuss the ins and outs of your case with you at every step along the way.
They prioritize your best interests and help you make well-considered decisions that support your legal rights.
They are a skilled negotiator who goes to bat for your case’s best possible resolution – whether that means having the charge against you dropped altogether, negotiating a favorable plea deal that may avoid jail time entirely, or taking the matter to trial when doing so is deemed the best path forward.
They will be well prepared to fiercely advocate for your rights at trial and will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to do so.
FAQ
The answers to some of the questions asked most frequently on the matter of ineffective assistance of counsel may help you with your own.
Does everyone have the right to an attorney?
Yes, if you are facing a criminal charge – other than a traffic ticket – you have the legal right to counsel, and if you can’t afford to hire an attorney, one will be assigned to you by the court.
It is always, however, to your advantage to work with an accomplished criminal defense attorney of your choosing who has the time, resources, legal insight, and experience to provide you with effective legal counsel, which can make a serious difference in the outcome of your case.
How do I know if I have a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel?
If you think you may be the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the most important step you can take is consulting with a seasoned criminal defense attorney who has reserves of experience helping clients like you resolve complex legal matters like yours as soon as you’re able to do so.
What are the necessary elements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?
To bring a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, you’ll need to prove each of the following elements:
That your attorney was deficient in their provision of counsel in your case
That you were prejudiced by your attorney’s ineffective assistance of counsel
The trusted criminal defense attorney who is guiding your claim will ensure that each of these points is very well established.
Can I prove ineffective assistance of counsel on my own?
If you believe that you are the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the stakes are far too high to handle the matter on your own. The immense difference that a focused criminal defense attorney can make in the outcome of your case is too important to ignore.
An Experienced Round Rock Criminal Defense Attorney Is Standing By to Help
Brett Pritchard at The Law Office of Brett H. Pritchard is a compassionate Round Rock criminal defense attorney who recognizes how seriously you can be prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel and will spare no effort in his quest to right the wrong you’ve experienced.
We are on your side and here to help, so please don’t delay contacting or calling us at 254-781-4222 to schedule your free consultation and learn more about what we can do for you today.