Ex Parte: Jay Sandon Cooper v. State
05-16-01243-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- Jay Sandon Cooper was convicted by a jury of DWI; punishment: 30 days jail and $2,000 fine.
- Cooper did not file an appellate brief; this Court affirmed the conviction in a prior appellate opinion and mandate issued September 28, 2015.
- Cooper filed a state habeas application on September 29, 2016; the trial court denied it without a hearing the next day.
- Cooper raised three habeas claims: (1) State witnesses testified untruthfully and misled the jury; (2) trial judge was personally biased against him; (3) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance on several specific failures.
- Trial record included testimony from Cooper, arresting officer, intoxilyzer operator, an intoxilyzer expert, radar testimony, breath test printouts, and the traffic-stop/arrest video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness false testimony violated due process | Cooper: State witnesses lied and prejudiced jury | State: Claim challenges credibility; should have been raised on direct appeal | Denied — not cognizable on habeas; should have been raised on direct appeal |
| Trial judge bias | Cooper: Post-trial findings show judge’s personal attacks and bias | State: Bias claim cognizable on direct appeal; not proper on habeas | Denied — claim not cognizable on habeas (could have been raised on direct appeal) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (general) | Cooper: Counsel failed in multiple respects (motions, objections, evidentiary plays) | State: Record shows counsel’s actions within reasonable professional norms; many complained-of items were unavailable or inadmissible | Denied — Cooper failed both Strickland prongs (performance and prejudice) |
| Specific evidentiary/defense failures (video, chain of custody, ALR transcript, sealed documents) | Cooper: Counsel failed to compel or exclude videos, introduce ALR transcript, challenge inconsistencies, seal certain in-camera documents | State: No record video of intoxilyzer room; traffic-stop video not shown to be altered; ALR transcript irrelevant; personnel file irrelevant | Denied — counsel not ineffective; omissions reasonable or evidence inadmissible/irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (habeas applicant must prove claim by preponderance and appellate standard of review for habeas findings)
- Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are generally not cognizable on habeas)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Bryant, 448 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (presumption that counsel’s performance conforms to professional norms)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (burden on applicant to prove ineffective assistance by preponderance)
- State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to trial court fact findings, especially credibility)