Burks, Jessie
WR-83,025-01
| Tex. App. | Mar 25, 2015Background
- Applicant Jessie Burks filed an objection to the State's proposed conclusions of law in his 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus in Smith County, Texas, arguing ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficiency of evidence.
- Trial counsel (Brent Ratekin) acknowledged in an affidavit he did not file discovery or pretrial defensive motions and relied largely on the State’s account; he reportedly spoke with the alleged victim who told him the offense did not occur and that she was the aggressor.
- The prosecution presented no photographs, video, or medical records showing bodily injury, and the State relied on character/prior-conviction evidence at trial and in the indictment.
- Appellate counsel (Austin Jackson) is alleged to have pursued only a frivolous enhancement-related sufficiency argument on direct appeal and failed to raise the sufficiency of the trial evidence supporting the assault conviction.
- Applicant contends trial counsel also failed to investigate and present mitigating/mental-health evidence (including TDCJ disciplinary/mental-health records) at sentencing, citing Wiggins and Rompilla-type standards.
- Applicant requests an evidentiary hearing, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommends relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance at trial | Burks: Ratekin failed to investigate, file motions, or present defenses; performance was objectively unreasonable | State: Record does not show deficiency or prejudice | Applicant requests relief; no court disposition in this filing (requests hearing) |
| 2. Failure to present mitigating/mental-health evidence | Burks: Counsel failed to investigate/present TDCJ/mental-health evidence that could affect sentencing | State: Claims inadequately supported by record | Applicant asserts prejudice under Wiggins/Rompilla; no final ruling here |
| 3. Ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Burks: Appellate counsel raised only a frivolous enhancement claim and omitted nonfrivolous sufficiency claim | State: Asserts appellate counsel did raise sufficiency (disputed) | Applicant requests relief for appellate ineffective assistance; no ruling in this filing |
| 4. Insufficiency of evidence / due process | Burks: Trial evidence lacked proof of assault (no medical/physical evidence); conviction relies on prior convictions and violates due process | State: Argues record supports conviction and denies the asserted defects | Applicant urges claim of fundamental defect and requests evidentiary hearing; no ruling here |
| 5. Prosecutorial misconduct (use of character/prior convictions) | Burks: Prosecutor introduced bad-character/prior-family-violence evidence improperly and argued propensity, infecting trial fairness | State: Denies prosecutorial misconduct claim | Applicant alleges denial of due process; no disposition in this document |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (ineffective assistance standard where counsel fails to investigate)
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (right to counsel principles)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 58 (right to effective counsel in capital or fundamental-fairness contexts)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (investigation of prior convictions and duty to investigate mitigating evidence)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (right to effective assistance on appeal)
- Lombard v. Lynaugh, 868 F.2d 1475 (appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise nonfrivolous issues)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutorial duty and misconduct that infects trial fairness)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 510 (due process and proof issues)