Moore, Ex Parte Darron T.
395 S.W.3d 152
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Moore was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4–200 g) and sentenced to 99 years; direct appeal upheld; writ of habeas corpus denied prior; Moore now raises ineffective-assistance claim for failing to preserve suppression issue for appellate review.
- Arrest and search: on December 8, 2006, officers executed a search warrant at Sunset Motel, Room 25, Lubbock, resulting in seizure of cocaine base and marijuana.
- Warrant affidavit: affidavit alleged “Dizzy” and “Nookie” as distributors, named the motel room, claimed confidential informant observed drugs within 72 hours, and asserted credibility of the informant.
- Pretrial and trial events: at suppression hearing, DEA agent Gerber testified; trial court denied suppression; at trial, defense did not object when the State offered the evidence; appellate relief previously denied; Moore later filed an affidavit acknowledging lack of trial strategy in not objecting.
- Habeas analysis: the Court applied Strickland to assess deficiency and prejudice; it held that Moore’s counsel’s performance was deficient for not preserving the issue, but Moore failed to show prejudice since standing analysis and the ultimate denial of suppression would not have changed the outcome; thus relief was denied.
- Conclusion: Moore’s claims fail on both prongs of Strickland and the court affirmed denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of suppression issue for appellate review | Moore argues trial counsel failed to preserve the suppression issue for appeal. | State contends no prejudice shown; suppression denial stands; standing may bar review. | Denied; no reversible error established. |
| Standing to challenge the motel-room search | Moore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. | Moore lacked standing; no personal expectation of privacy. | Moore lacked standing; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Prejudice under Strickland standard | deficient performance affected the trial’s outcome. | Even with preservation, appellate review would not likely succeed. | Denied; no reasonable probability of different outcome on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (waiver when defendant says ‘no objection’ to admitted evidence)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing analysis focuses on extent of Fourth Amendment rights)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guest privacy expectation in a residence)
- Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (standing in motel/hotel room requires totality of circumstances)
- Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (multiple factors for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (de novo review of standing issues; defer to trial court on factual findings)