Eugene Kelly Wolfenberger v. State
03-13-00494-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Eugene Kelly Wolfenberger was convicted by a jury of intoxication manslaughter on July 12, 2013 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- His blood was drawn without a warrant pursuant to Texas’s mandatory implied-consent blood-draw statutory scheme; the blood evidence showed a BAC of .30.
- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely on April 17, 2013, holding that the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not create a per se exigency to justify warrantless nonconsensual blood draws and that exigency must be assessed under the totality of circumstances.
- Trial occurred in July 2013 (more than two months after McNeely), but defense counsel did not move to suppress or object to the warrantless blood draw evidence.
- On appeal this Court affirmed the conviction in October 2015, concluding the law regarding mandatory blood draws and implied consent was unsettled at the time of trial (citing state-court developments), and therefore counsel was not deficient for failing to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress warrantless blood evidence under McNeely | Wolfenberger: McNeely required a warrant in many blood-draw cases; counsel’s failure to object or move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial given the high BAC | State/Appellate court: Law was unsettled in Texas because the Court of Criminal Appeals had not yet addressed the statute’s interplay with McNeely; counsel not deficient | Appellate court: Affirmed — counsel not ineffective because the applicable law was unsettled at trial |
| Whether U.S. Supreme Court precedent (McNeely) alone imposed a clear duty to object despite pending state-court interpretations | Wolfenberger: Supreme Court precedent controls; defense counsel had a duty to follow McNeely and challenge warrantless draws | State/Appellate court: Texas precedent and unresolved state-court guidance meant McNeely’s impact on Texas’s implied-consent statute was unclear at trial | Appellate court: Held that unsettled state-law landscape insulated counsel from deficiency claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1522 (U.S. 2013) (Supreme Court: alcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency for warrantless blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draws implicate significant privacy interests; exigency assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- State v. Bennett, 415 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (counsel not ineffective where statutory interpretation was unsettled among state decisions)