Johnson, Jamaile Burnett, PD-0553-20

Background

Appellant Jamailie Burnett Johnson was convicted of theft after taking a truck; he asserted he believed the truck was his because of serious mental-health issues.
At trial defense counsel attempted to admit Johnson’s medical records to support lack-of-intent/mental-impairment evidence, but offered the records without a records‑custodian predicate; the trial court excluded them for lack of foundation.
The Harris County First Court of Appeals reversed, concluding counsel was ineffective for failing to properly admit over 1,000 pages of medical records and that Johnson was prejudiced by that omission.
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard of review for an ineffective‑assistance claim.
The CCA held the court of appeals erred because (1) the medical records it relied on were not part of the appellate record and thus could not be considered, (2) the appellate court improperly presumed deficient performance from a silent record without giving counsel the opportunity to explain strategy, and (3) prejudice was not shown on the record. The CCA reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court.
The opinion noted Johnson may pursue an 11.07 habeas application to allow trial counsel to explain the trial‑level decisions about the medical records.

Issues

Issue	Johnson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard in reviewing an ineffective‑assistance claim	Counsel was ineffective for failing to properly admit medical records that would negate intent	The appellate court relied on materials not in the record and improperly presumed deficiency from a silent record	CCA: Court of appeals misapplied the standard; reversal was improper; trial court judgment affirmed
Whether an appellate court may consider medical records not in the appellate record	The records demonstrate severe mental illness and should inform the effectiveness and prejudice analysis	Documents not filed in the trial record, not part of an offer of proof or bill, cannot be considered on appeal	CCA: Appellate courts cannot consider items not in the record (Tex. R. App. P. 34.1)
Whether counsel’s failure to lay a records‑custodian predicate constituted deficient performance	Failing to satisfy the Rule 803(6)/902(10) predicate was professionally unreasonable	The record is silent; counsel may have had reasonable strategy (avoid exposing harmful history); cannot presume error	CCA: Cannot find deficiency from a silent record; counsel entitled to benefit of plausible strategy
Whether Johnson was prejudiced by the alleged deficiency	Medical records would have created reasonable doubt as to intent	The court of appeals improperly focused only on the non‑record medical files rather than the totality of trial evidence; prejudice not shown on record	CCA: Prejudice not established on the record; no reason to reach Strickland prejudice prong given deficiency not shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Prine v. State, 537 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (appellate courts may not consider materials not in the record)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (counsel should generally be given an opportunity to explain trial decisions before being found ineffective)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional assistance)
McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (ineffectiveness allegations must be firmly founded in the record)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presume counsel’s performance was not deficient absent affirmative record evidence)
Miller v. State, 548 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (prejudice inquiry asks whether but for the errors the factfinder would have had reasonable doubt)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (courts must imagine any reasonably sound strategic motivation before finding ineffectiveness)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (in an undeveloped record, counsel is ineffective only if conduct is so outrageous no competent attorney would have engaged in it)
Jones v. State, 478 S.W.2d 937 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (appellate review limited to the record on appeal)
Martin v. State, 492 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (same)
Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (ineffective‑assistance claims can be raised in an 11.07 writ when not developed on direct appeal)
Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (same)