Menefield v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 570
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant charged with possessing cocaine in an amount less than one gram.
- Laboratory report admitted; report prepared by Roy Murphy, former supervisor, test conducted by Murphy, but Murphy did not testify.
- Sponsor for the report was Brandon Conrad of the Texas Department of Public Safety; Conrad testified, but Murphy did not.
- Defense questioned who conducted the test and the procedure used, and stated no objection to the report.
- On direct appeal, appellant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object; court of appeals agreed the report was Confrontation Clause error; State sought discretionary review.
- Trial court record did not disclose counsel's reasons for not objecting, nor whether Murphy could testify if objected; record insufficient to judge deficient performance; majority reverses court of appeals and remands for consideration of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel’s failure to object to the lab report ineffective assistance? | Menefield argues failure to object violated Confrontation Clause. | State argues record does not show deficient performance or strategic reasons. | Record inadequate to prove deficient performance; remand. |
| Does the record on direct appeal suffice to adjudicate ineffective assistance claims under Strickland? | Record supports deficient performance and prejudice. | Record typically undeveloped; counsel should be allowed to explain. | Record silent on counsel's reasons; cannot conclude deficient performance; remand for remaining claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation rights in laboratory evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (record sufficient to decide on direct appeal for ineffective assistance)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (standard for evaluating claims of trial counsel performance)
- Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (evidence and confrontation concerns)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Strickland standard application)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (record requirements for ineffective assistance)