Christopher Justin Scarborough v. the State of Texas
05-19-00934-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 6, 2021Background
- Plano officer stopped Scarborough for an improperly affixed paper tag in a high-crime area and observed live pistol rounds in plain view.
- Scarborough denied a firearm, admitted a knife; officer removed the knife, asked to search the car, and Scarborough refused consent.
- Officer called for backup and a K‑9; when Scarborough said he intended to leave, the officer detained him and a physical altercation with the officer ensued; body‑cam videos were introduced at trial.
- The defense presented no evidence and called no witnesses at the guilt/innocence phase; the jury convicted Scarborough of assault on a police officer (second‑degree felony).
- At punishment the court assessed three years’ confinement; Scarborough filed a handwritten, unsworn post‑conviction letter complaining of counsel’s failures and appealed solely on ineffective‑assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scarborough received ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was "virtually inert": failed to investigate, prepare, communicate, object, call witnesses, or properly follow procedures | Counsel conducted voir dire, opening, cross‑examination, filed motions/elections, and made strategic choices; record is silent on reasons for decisions | Affirmed — Cronic not triggered; Strickland not shown on direct appeal; record insufficient to prove deficient performance and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumed prejudice when counsel entirely fails to test the prosecution)
- Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (describes the “inert” or “potted‑plant” lawyer example)
- Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (where record is silent, appellate court will presume a plausible strategic motive)
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (assume strategic motive if any can be imagined)
- Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explains Strickland prejudice standard)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes Cronic and Strickland as different kinds of failure)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance)