James Joseph Watts v. State
06-15-00072-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 4, 2015Background
- Appellant James Joseph Watts was placed on 10 years deferred-adjudication community supervision (probation) for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 (indicted April 2005; deferred adjudication Aug. 2005).
- In December 2014 the State filed a fourth motion to revoke deferred adjudication; a revocation hearing was held Feb. 18, 2015.
- At the revocation hearing the State presented multiple witnesses at the true/not-true stage; Watts testified in his own defense.
- At punishment, defense counsel requested a continuance to call additional witnesses, the request was denied; defense called one witness (Diane Watkins). Counsel did not subpoena several defense witnesses (including Dr. Anna Shursen) and did not interview or call others the appellant requested.
- The trial court adjudicated Watts guilty and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment (with 429 days credit). Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for new trial; this brief argues counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call/subpoena witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Watts' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call/subpoena witnesses at revocation/punishment | Counsel failed to interview or subpoena proposed witnesses (e.g., Dr. Shursen, family, neighbors); this deprived Watts of a fair hearing and likely affected outcome | (Not in brief) Trial court record shows counsel was present and made tactical choices; no record explanation of strategy | Trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Watts; the appellate brief preserves an IAC claim for review. No appellate decision on the claim is contained in this brief. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to request continuance/subpoena witnesses prejudiced Watts at punishment | Missing witnesses would have rebutted State’s allegations of contact with children and would have provided mitigation (Dr. Shursen program progress) | (Not in brief) State would argue no reasonable probability of different outcome given evidence and presumption of counsel competence | Issue preserved for appeal; outcome not decided in this brief. |
| Whether a single omission (not calling key witnesses) can constitute reversible ineffective assistance | A single egregious omission can be constitutionally deficient and prejudicial under Strickland and Texas precedent | State would rely on presumption that counsel’s choices are strategic and on the lack of record proof of mitigation testimony | Preserved for appellate review; no ruling in the brief. |
| Whether appellant is entitled to a new hearing based on counsel’s performance | Requests reversal and new hearing due to counsel’s failures to investigate and present witnesses | (Not in brief) State likely to argue no deficient performance or no prejudice shown | Appellant requests reversal and new hearing; the brief seeks relief from the appellate court — no appellate ruling provided here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (clarifies prejudice inquiry focuses on reliability and fundamental fairness)
- Knight v. Texas, 91 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. Waco 2002) (discusses strong presumption of competent representation and when record must show counsel's reasons)