Lampkin, Esaw, PD-1333-15

Background

Respondent Esaw Lampkin was convicted of DWI (third or more) with two prior felony enhancements; jury assessed 99-year sentence.
After conviction, Lampkin filed a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a competency evaluation and for failing to obtain prison/mental-health records that might have provided mitigation.
At the new-trial hearing, trial counsel testified and the trial court reviewed Lampkin’s TDCJ records (which showed low IQ, psychiatric contacts, but also malingering/noncompliance) and denied relief, finding counsel not ineffective and noting the records could be aggravating as well as mitigating.
On appeal, the Sixth Court of Appeals reversed as to one issue and remanded for resentencing, concluding counsel unreasonably failed to investigate Lampkin’s mental-health history and that prejudice could not be dismissed despite the potential negative aspects of the records.
The State (petitioner) seeks discretionary review, arguing the Court of Appeals misapplied Strickland by shifting burdens, failing to defer to trial-court fact findings, and improperly refusing to weigh the totality (including aggravating aspects) of undiscovered mitigation evidence.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner (State) Argument	Respondent (Lampkin) Argument	Held by Court of Appeals
Whether appellate court reversed Strickland burdens by relying on absence of evidence that counsel investigated	Court: Court of Appeals shifted burden to State by treating lack of evidence of investigation as proof counsel acted unreasonably; defendant must prove counsel’s deficiencies	Lampkin: Counsel failed to investigate or obtain mental-health/prison records and thus was deficient	Court of Appeals found counsel failed to investigate and reversed on this ground
Whether appellate court properly weighed mitigating vs. aggravating value of undiscovered records	Court: Appellate court erred by refusing to consider the trial court’s finding that records could be aggravating; appellate review should defer to trial-court fact findings and analyze totality under Strickland	Lampkin: Records contained mitigating material that jury could have used; absence of defense investigation prejudiced sentencing	Court of Appeals weighed potential mitigation value and concluded prejudice existed despite possible negative aspects
Proper standard of review for trial-court factual findings on ineffective assistance	Court: Trial court’s findings of fact and credibility should receive deference (abuse-of-discretion standard); appellate court failed to apply this deference	Lampkin: Errors in counsel’s investigation are reviewed under Strickland; appellate court applied that framework	Court of Appeals effectively gave no deference to trial-court findings in this matter
Whether prejudice must be assessed by examining undiscovered evidence in full context	Court: Prejudice requires assessing totality (both mitigating and aggravating) and reasonable probability of different outcome; appellate court improperly considered only potential mitigating value	Lampkin: Prejudice shown because records could have provided different light on prior convictions and mitigation	Court of Appeals found a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence if mitigation had been presented

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard for IAC claims)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (requires assessment of totality of mitigating evidence and counsel’s investigation)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (IAC claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (limits of record affect IAC claims on direct appeal)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (burden on defendant to prove IAC by preponderance)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (per curiam) (prejudice analysis may require reweighing the totality of available mitigating evidence)
Milburn v. State, 15 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (IAC analysis where counsel failed to investigate mitigation)
Shanklin v. State, 190 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (discussion of mitigation investigation and appellate review)