Ledet, Desmond
WR-82,778-01
Tex. App.Feb 5, 2015Background
- Ledet was indicted for aggravated sexual assault and tried June 22, 2010 by a sitting in-trial judge; he was represented by Fortinberry and ultimately found guilty of the lesser offense, sexual assault, with direct appeal and post-conviction relief following.
- During voir dire, the public seating was allegedly full and Ledet’s parents were kept in the hall; defense counsel reportedly did not object or seek accommodations.
- The central issue is whether the trial court deprived Ledet of the Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment right to a public trial, particularly during voir dire, and whether the court failed to perform the Waller test or consider alternatives.
- Ledet filed this Article 11.07 habeas corpus petition seeking relief on Grounds 1–4, alleging denial of a public trial and ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object, before any live evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court adopted state-proposed findings that Ledet challenges as inaccurate/incomplete, and the court grants relief on several grounds, including public-trial violations and ineffective assistance, via a preponderance-of-evidence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did voir dire closure violate the public-trial right? | Ledet | Fortinberry/State | Yes; voir dire was closed and not justified. |
| Was Ledet’s right waived knowingly or intentionally? | Ledet | State/Trial counsel | Waiver not proven; Ledet did not knowingly relinquish the right. |
| Was defense counsel ineffective for not objecting to the closure? | Ledet | Fortinberry; not ineffective per se | Ineffective assistance; deficiency, with prejudice, under Johnson/Strickland framework. |
| Are the errors structural and thus reversible without harmless-error analysis? | Ledet | State | Yes; errors are structural and require reversal. |
| What relief is warranted for Grounds 1–4? | Ledet | State | Grant relief; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public-trial right extends to voir dire and requires careful closure analysis)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (reiterates public-trial right extends to voir dire; Waller framework applies)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (requires trial court to consider reasonable alternatives to closure)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (totality-of-evidence standard for public trial closure; focus on accommodation duties)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (public-trial violation classified as fundamental error (non-harmless))
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (public-trial right applies to state proceedings via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) (public-trial guarantees promote fairness and accountability)
- Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (structure for addressing ineffective assistance where a structural defect exists)
- Blue v. State, 45 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (recognizes plain/fundamental error concept accompanying public-trial issues)
- Hitt v. United States, 473 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2006) (waiver rule does not apply where defendant lacked knowledge of the public-trial right)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (counsel must protect defendant's rights; effective assistance standard)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) (waiver of rights requires knowing and intelligent relinquishment)