Bryan Stallworth v. Randall Ayers
510 S.W.3d 187
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Stallworth was appointed criminal counsel by the court and convicted of assault on a family member (second offense).
- While incarcerated, Stallworth sued his former appointed attorney, Ayers, alleging deficient representation: failure to present a recanting affidavit, not seeking records, not moving for speedy trial, advising a guilty plea under threat, and not challenging the charging instrument.
- Stallworth pleaded causes of action styled as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and DTPA violations (originally negligence); he attached the complainant’s affidavit and a fax/cover letter he sent to the criminal court.
- Ayers moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing Stallworth’s claims are legal malpractice and barred because Stallworth had not been exonerated.
- The trial court granted the Rule 91a motion, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and awarded Ayers $1,000 in attorney’s fees; Stallworth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stallworth’s breach of contract/fiduciary claims are legally cognizable separate from legal malpractice | Stallworth contends breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims are distinct and that he may sue without exoneration | Ayers contends the claims are, in substance, legal malpractice challenging the adequacy of his legal representation | Court held the claims are really legal malpractice (cannot fracture malpractice into other causes of action) |
| Whether Stallworth can pursue malpractice-type claims without being exonerated for the underlying conviction | Stallworth argued he has a right to sue and relied on his affidavit and fax as evidence; he asserted he would not be incarcerated but for Ayers’ breaches | Ayers relied on Peeler: a convicted criminal cannot recover for malpractice related to the conviction unless exonerated; Stallworth has not been exonerated | Court held Peeler governs: because Stallworth was not exonerated, his criminal conduct is the cause in fact of his conviction and his claims are barred as a matter of law; dismissal under Rule 91a affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995) (convicted criminal cannot recover for malpractice related to the conviction unless exonerated)
- Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (applies Peeler doctrine expansively to malpractice and related claims in Rule 91a context)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (elements of legal malpractice: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2004) (must produce evidence permitting jury to infer attorney’s conduct caused damages when malpractice arises from prior litigation)