Lawrence James Jr. v. State
13-14-00380-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Lawrence James Jr. was indicted for murder, pleaded guilty in a non-negotiated, un‑agreed plea; State recommended life, defendant requested 25 years. The trial court found him guilty and later sentenced him to life following a PSIR and a sentencing hearing.
- Defense moved to withdraw the guilty plea at sentencing; the trial court denied the motion and imposed life imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; new appellate counsel later filed a merits brief. This appeal raises nine reorganized issues challenging various trial procedures and counsel performance.
- Key contested matters: alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, absence of a complete reporter’s record for part of the proceedings, PSIR content at sentencing, voluntariness and admonishments of the plea (including nunc pro tunc plea papers), denial of a request to dismiss court‑appointed counsel, and handling of a pro se motion for new trial.
- The court affirmed, concluding most complaints were either forfeited for lack of preservation or unsupported on the silent record; it also held the plea admonishments were proper and that ineffective‑assistance claims lacked a developed record.
Issues
| Issue | James's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to investigate, communicate, file motions, notify reassignments, object to PSIR content, and misadvised re: plea withdrawal | Record contains no evidence of deficient performance; claims are vague and unsubstantiated | Court: no deficient performance shown on the silent record; issue overruled (Strickland governs) |
| Open and public trial | Courtroom was closed or not open to public | No record support; counsel could not develop argument | Court: no record of closure; issue forfeited/overruled |
| Notice of judge/prosecutor change | Not notified of reassignment, prejudiced by changes | Reassignment removed a conflicted prosecutor who disqualified herself; no harm shown | Court: no harm; issue overruled |
| Reliance on PSIR at sentencing | Court and prosecutor relied on extraneous offenses and victim statements in PSIR improperly | Defendant failed to object at sentencing; issue not preserved | Court: no timely, specific objection; forfeited/overruled |
| Incomplete reporter’s record | Reporter failed to record ~3‑hour interval (voir dire to plea) so record is incomplete | No contemporaneous objection or request to reporter; right may be forfeited | Court: defendant failed to preserve complaint by not objecting or requesting record; overruled |
| Voluntariness of plea / admonishments (nunc pro tunc papers) | Plea involuntary due to improper or missing admonishments; nunc pro tunc papers incorrect | Court orally and in writing properly admonished defendant; two sets of plea papers together correct clerical date error | Court: admonishments substantially complied; plea voluntary; partial nunc pro tunc sufficient; issues overruled |
| Motion to dismiss appointed counsel | Trial court abused discretion by denying pro se motion to dismiss counsel and failed to address alleged failure to investigate | Defendant did not present failure‑to‑investigate ground at hearing (though in later written motion); claims unsubstantiated | Court: defendant failed to timely present/secure substantiation; denial not error |
| Motion for new trial / remand request | Requests remand so he may file/present motion for new trial; contends pro se motion filed but not presented | State notes hybrid‑representation limits and that motion was overruled by operation of law | Court: motion was filed but not presented to court as required; defendant forfeited right to review; no remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (adopting Strickland under Texas Constitution)
- Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deficient performance meaning)
- Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (silent record standard for ineffectiveness)
- Davis v. State, 345 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (obligation to object to reporter absence to preserve complaint)
- Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (admonishment creates prima facie voluntariness)
- Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (motion for new trial must be presented to trial court)