James Alan Weatherford v. State
03-14-00528-CR
Tex. App.Aug 3, 2015Background
- Weatherford pleaded guilty in open plea to multiple counts of Possession of Child Pornography in two cases.
- Appellant appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious grounds.
- Weatherford filed a pro se brief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Record shows Weatherford was admonished and understood the consequences of pleading guilty.
- Motion for new trial (Aug. 21, 2014) alleged only that verdict was contrary to law and evidence; no ineffective-assistance claim.
- Court concludes record lacks proof of coercion or misunderstanding; plea was properly admonished; request to withdraw counsel granted as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on guilty plea | Weatherford (Weatherford) claims counsel coerced plea and misinformed on proceedings | State contends no record support; counsel's decisions were reasonable | Frivolous on direct appeal; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Delrio v. State, 840 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (highly deferential review of counsel decisions; strong presumption of reasonable strategy)
- Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Strickland standard applied to ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice prongs)
- Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (record often insufficient on direct appeal; habeas corpus preferred)