Jerome Goody v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2688
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In Sept. 2010 Goody and co-defendants entered a bank masked and armed; they shot Deputy Bettin (who returned fire). Goody later presented at a hospital with a gunshot wound.
- Goody was indicted for aggravated robbery and three aggravated assaults (including assault on a public servant and two assaults with a deadly weapon from an earlier incident).
- Goody pleaded guilty to all charges without an agreed recommendation; trial court ordered a PSI and later assessed punishment: life for robbery, 60 years for assault on a public servant, and 10 years on each of the two other assaults.
- Goody moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) counsel’s conflict of interest (barratry indictment), (2) incompetence as a matter of law, and (3) failure to investigate/produce mitigating mental-health and developmental-disability evidence (and related plea-negotiation prejudice).
- At the new-trial hearing evidence about counsel Ronald Ray’s barratry indictment and mental-health records was presented; the trial judge denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest from counsel’s pending barratry indictment | Ray’s indictment for barratry created an actual conflict that chilled a vigorous defense | Barratry unrelated to Goody’s offenses; no evidence the indictment actually affected representation | No actual conflict shown; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial |
| Counsel incompetent as a matter of law because of jeopardized license | Ray’s pending criminal charge made him effectively incompetent to represent Goody | Ray was neither suspended nor disbarred; Cantu’s per se rule applies only to unlicensed or suspended attorneys | Cantu inapplicable; no showing Ray lacked a valid license or was suspended, so no per se incompetence |
| Failure to investigate and present mitigation (developmental disability, mental illness) | Counsel did not obtain/present records that would have reduced moral culpability and punishment | Records were before the trial judge at the new-trial hearing; judge found the mitigation would not have changed sentence or plea bargaining | Even assuming deficient investigation, Goody failed to show prejudice; trial judge reasonably concluded mitigation wouldn’t have reduced punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficiency and prejudice)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest relief requires proof of actual conflict that adversely affected representation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (standards for adequacy of investigation into mitigating evidence)
- Riley v. State, 378 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of motion-for-new-trial findings)
- Cantu v. State, 930 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (when suspended/disbarred counsel may be incompetent as a matter of law)
- United States v. Cancilla, 725 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1984) (attorney’s similar criminal conduct can create conflict by deterring vigorous defense)