In re McCann
422 S.W.3d 701
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Patrick McCann represented Albert James Turner at trial; Turner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 2011. Post-conviction counsel (OCW, later James Rytting) sought Turner’s trial file for habeas investigation; Turner refused to authorize release.
- McCann declined to turn over the physical file, asserting his client (Turner) owned the file and had instructed him not to release it. The trial court ordered McCann to relinquish the file and later held him in contempt when he refused.
- McCann petitioned this Court for mandamus and prohibition; initial petitions were dismissed as moot when OCW withdrew, but after Rytting was appointed and renewed the request, the trial court again ordered turnover and contempt followed. This Court stayed enforcement and ordered briefing on ownership and control of client files.
- Key legal questions: who owns a client’s file; consequences if a client refuses to release it to successor counsel; and who decides if the client is unable or unwilling to decide.
- The Court held that (1) the client owns the contents of the trial file; (2) a competent client’s decision not to release the file must be honored by former counsel; and (3) the trial court lacked authority to compel McCann to turn over the file or punish him for complying with his client’s instruction—mandamus relief was conditionally granted to vacate the turnover and contempt orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCann) | Defendant's Argument (Rytting/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owns a client’s physical file? | Client (Turner) owns file and former counsel must follow client’s direction | Successor counsel argued need for file for effective habeas representation and invoked professional guidelines | Client owns file; ownership controls — former counsel must honor competent client’s refusal to release |
| Can a trial court order former counsel to relinquish the file against the client’s wishes? | No — such an order would force counsel to violate fiduciary/confidential duties and client property rights | Trial court can order disclosure to ensure effective postconviction review in capital case | Trial court lacked authority to compel McCann to turn over the file or to enforce by contempt in these circumstances; mandamus granted |
| Does disciplinary or ethical guidance require trial counsel to retain/turn over copies for successor counsel? | Former counsel relied on client instructions and duties of confidentiality/agency | Successor relied on ABA/State Bar capital-defense guidelines urging cooperation and file transfer to successor counsel | Guidelines are persuasive only; they do not override a competent client’s property/consent rights; former counsel must follow client unless other legal grounds (e.g., lien, incompetence) exist |
| If client is unable/unwilling, who decides (former counsel, successor, judge, guardian)? | Former counsel: follow client unless client is incompetent | Successor counsel/judge: may compel turnover to protect client interests and postconviction rights | If attorney reasonably believes client lacks legal competence, attorney must seek guardian appointment; otherwise client’s competent choice controls; parties may seek guardianship to override refusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. State, 642 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (held that the contents of a client’s file belong to the client and addressed privilege implications)
- In re George, 28 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. 2000) (recognizes attorney as agent and that a client’s work product belongs to the client)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standards: ministerial act and adequacy of legal remedies)
- Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (mandamus filing procedures in capital cases)
- Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (mandamus relief where trial court acts without inherent authority)
- Ex parte Thompson, 273 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Court’s habeas jurisdiction includes review of contempt orders)
- Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discusses limits on appealability of certain orders)