Harrington Christopher Young v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1574
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Young pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14, a first-degree felony; trial court sentenced him to 15 years.
- PSI contained inconsistencies: Baytown incident age and offense age misstatements; conflicting juvenile/adult history entries; date-age mislisting (18 vs. 17) in the report.
- There is no reporter’s record of sentencing; appellate counsel initially deemed grounds frivolous; Anders-based review remanded to consider arguable issues.
- The court determined an arguable issue existed—ineffective assistance for not challenging the PSI’s age inconsistencies—and remanded to appoint new appellate counsel.
- Statutory eligibility for deferred adjudication exists, but the judge must find it in the best interest of the victim; the record did not show such a finding, making a deferred adjudication motion potentially futile.
- The Houston First District Court affirmatively upheld the trial court’s 15-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance—failure to file deferred adjudication motion | Young—counsel should have filed for deferred adjudication. | State—motion was unnecessary and futile given no best-interest finding. | No ineffective assistance; motion would have been futile and not required. |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to object to PSI inconsistencies | Young—counsel should have objected to age/Baytown entries in PSI. | State—even if misimpressions existed, no reasonable probability of different sentence. | No ineffective assistance; inconsistencies did not prove likelihood of a different sentence. |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to request court reporter | Young—lack of reporter prevented preservation of objections. | State—non-preservation and speculation are improper; no showing of prejudice. | No reversible error; inability to speculate does not prove deficient performance. |
| Cruel and unusual punishment—sentence within statutory range | Young—15 years disproportionate given age and eligibility for deferred adjudication. | Sentence within range; not automatically cruel or unusual. | Not cruel or unusual; within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice)
- May v. State, 722 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (distinguishes requirements for probation-related matters)
- Hurley v. State, 130 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004) (trial court has broad discretion in deferred adjudication and sentencing)
- Gonzales v. State, 732 S.W.2d 67 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (non-preservation of court reporter does not automatically render counsel ineffective)