James Joseph Watts v. State, 06-15-00072-CR

In 2005 James Joseph Watts pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and received deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years.
The State filed multiple motions to adjudicate during the supervision period; a fourth motion filed in December 2014 was pursued to a hearing.
The State originally alleged seven supervision violations, abandoned one, and the trial court found six violations true, revoked community supervision, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Watts to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Watts appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at the adjudication hearing based on trial counsel’s failure to subpoena and call six specific witnesses (Dr. Anna Shursen, Kayla Ashley, Edward Watts, Victor Harris, Rhonda Wooten, Cynthia Mauldin).
Trial counsel testified at the motion-for-new-trial hearing that (1) Shursen’s expected testimony about readmission to treatment would be cumulative of State testimony; (2) he had no record Watts asked him to call Ashley or Harris; (3) Watts failed to provide contact info for Edward; and (4) Wooten and Mauldin faced charge-related impediments to competent, useful testimony.
The court found Watts did not establish that counsel’s decisions fell below objective reasonableness and therefore failed the first Strickland prong; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Watts' Argument	State/Defense Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena/call six named witnesses at the adjudication hearing	Card failed to call available witnesses whose testimony could have helped Watts	Counsel made reasonable strategic choices; some witnesses unavailable, their testimony would be cumulative, or counsel lacked contact info	Court held counsel was not ineffective; Watts failed to satisfy Strickland’s performance prong and the conviction was affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
Ex parte Imoudu, 284 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing application of Strickland in Texas)
Profitt v. Waldron, 831 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1987) (counsel’s omissions can be ineffective where known medical/mental facts are ignored)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Strickland claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App.) (cases addressing counsel’s strategic decisions and witness choices)