Cockrell, Darrell Lynn
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 276
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Darrell Lynn Cockrell, who had bilateral severe hearing loss and used hearing aids and lip reading, was tried in 2009 for aggravated sexual assault of a child; no qualified interpreter or court-ordered accommodations were provided at trial.
- Trial counsel knew of Cockrell’s hearing impairment (asked to turn up microphones, yelled during questioning, and referred to him as “legally deaf”) but did not request a statutory interpreter; communication at trial was limited to notes and shouting.
- Cockrell later filed a motion for new trial alleging he could not hear proceedings or assist in his defense; the motion was denied and he did not raise the issue on direct appeal.
- In post-conviction habeas proceedings Cockrell argued counsel was ineffective for failing to request an interpreter under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.31 and that this violation deprived him of confrontation and due process rights.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held counsel’s failure to request an interpreter was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial under Strickland because Cockrell could not understand substantial portions of witness testimony in a case hinging on witness credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Applicant's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a court‑appointed interpreter under art. 38.31 | Cockrell: counsel knew he was deaf and should have requested a qualified interpreter; failure was deficient performance | Counsel/trial court: relied on lip reading, hearing aids, notes; trial court did not detect an impairment | Held: Counsel’s failure was deficient — attorney was on notice and should have sought interpreter |
| Whether the trial court would have erred in overruling an objection to lack of interpreter | Cockrell: statute mandates appointment when court is notified; objection would have merited relief | State: implied that impairment was not obvious to court and accommodations made were adequate | Held: Trial court would have been required to appoint an interpreter (mandatory duty) absent a waiver |
| Whether deficient performance prejudiced applicant under Strickland | Cockrell: inability to hear witnesses deprived him of confrontation, assistance, and a reliable adversarial process; evidence was close | State: pointed to some instances where Cockrell understood questions and could communicate with counsel | Held: Prejudice proven — substantial portion of proceedings incomprehensible; reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Remedy | Cockrell: new trial | State: no relief argued in opinion | Held: Writ granted; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deficiency-by-failure-to-object framework)
- Linton v. State, 275 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. Crim. App.) (art. 38.31 implements right to confrontation for deaf defendants)
- Tijerina, 571 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deaf defendant entitled to interpreters to assist in defense)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (remedies and prejudice analysis where counsel error affects procedural fairness)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (due process and fair opportunity to defend)
- Ferrell v. Estelle, 568 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir.) (written notes insufficient to cure communication failure)
- Garcia v. State, 149 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App.) (right to be present and understand testimony)
- Gonzalez v. Phillips, 195 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Mich.) (counsel ineffective for failing to seek interpreter when on notice of comprehension problems)