Dietrich, Kyle Carpenter, WR-84,163-01

Background

Kyle Carpenter Dietrich was convicted in 2007 of aggravated sexual assault of a child; jury assessed 33 years. Habeas application followed alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Thompson and Morgan).
The trial record included the complainant's detailed testimony of repeated sexual assaults spanning ages 13–17, and limited defense testimony (only the complainant’s mother testified for the defense in guilt/innocence).
At trial there were contested voir dire rulings (several venirepersons questioned at the bench), testimony referencing the mother’s prior substance-treatment and Cenikor, and extensive cross-examination eliciting numerous, graphic extraneous sexual-act details from the complainant.
Defense counsels made in-trial strategic decisions: decline some objections to avoid highlighting damaging testimony, not calling certain defense witnesses after prosecutors indicated impeachment material, and reserving character witnesses for punishment.
The 178th District Court conducted an evidentiary habeas hearing and entered findings recommending a new trial, finding multiple instances of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland. The State filed detailed objections asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to reject those findings and deny relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dietrich)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held / Disposition by Trial Court (subject of State's objections)
1) Voir dire — failure to challenge biased venirepersons (McKay, Crutcher, Green)	Counsel failed to preserve and pursue challenges for cause; performance was deficient and prejudicial.	Trial judge’s bench rehabilitation was proper; counsel reasonably relied on bench questioning and peremptories; no abuse of discretion.	Trial court found counsel deficient for not preserving challenges and recommended new trial.
2) Admission of testimony about mother/applicant meeting in drug rehab and mother’s substance history	Such testimony was inadmissible extraneous misconduct that counsel should have timely objected to.	Testimony was contextual and partly elicited by State; counsel made strategic decision to avoid highlighting it; objection likely would have been overruled.	Trial court viewed admission as improper and counsel’s failure to object as deficient.
3) Failure to call or impeach key defense witnesses (Rives/Reeves, Morehead, Acton) and not using MySpace/emails	Counsel failed to investigate or subpoena available witnesses and discover impeachment material; this deprived Dietrich of meaningful confrontation and impeachment.	Counsel made strategic, in‑trial decisions after being warned of damaging impeachment material; calling those witnesses risked greater harm.	Trial court found omissions deficient and prejudicial; recommended relief.
4) Cross‑examination that elicited numerous, graphic extraneous sexual‑assault details	Counsel’s elicitation of voluminous graphic details was unsound strategy and highly prejudicial.	Counsel’s strategy was to undermine credibility by showing the allegations were incredible; decision had plausible strategic basis and is protected from hindsight review.	Trial court deemed counsel’s questioning deficient and materially prejudicial, supporting a new trial recommendation.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions under Strickland)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (prejudice requirement under Strickland explained)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (appellate review of habeas trial-court findings not binding on CCA)
Ex parte Davis, 866 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (presumption that counsel’s decisions are made in exercise of reasonable professional judgment)
Blott v. State, 588 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (courts avoid second‑guessing reasonable trial strategy)
King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (deference to trial court on vacillating voir‑dire answers)
Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (juror bias as matter of law where juror cannot consider full range of punishment)
Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (admissibility of prior accusations requires showing falsity and similarity)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant’s right to testify in own defense)