Okonkwo, Chidiebele Gabriel
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 758
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Defendant Chidie-bele Gabriel Okonkwo was charged with forgery of money (third-degree felony) and claimed he lacked knowledge the money was forged.
- The State had to prove that Okonkwo acted with intent to defraud or harm and knew the bills were forged; trial focused on whether he knew the money was counterfeit.
- Defense argued for a statutory mistake-of-fact instruction to negate the culpable mental state; trial counsel did not request it.
- The jury was instructed that knowledge of forgery was required for conviction, and it found Okonkwo guilty.
- Okonkwo moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting the mistake-of-fact instruction; the trial court denied.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding counsel ineffective; State petitioned for discretionary review seeking, inter alia, objective standard application and necessity of the instruction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strickland uses an objective standard for counsel performance | Okonkwo argues objective standard governs review | State contends the appellate court erred adopting subjective analysis | Appellate review must be objective; the court agrees with using objective standard |
| Whether failure to request a mistake-of-fact instruction was objectively unreasonable | Okonkwo's counsel should have requested the instruction to negate knowledge | Counsel's conduct was reasonable given the record and possible prejudice | Counsel's failure was not objectively unreasonable; court sustains State on this ground |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying new trial based on ineffective assistance | State argues no abuse; record supports denial | Okonkwo claims new-trial credibility issues and prejudice | Court of Appeals erred; trial court’s denial not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the State had to prove knowledge of forgery beyond a reasonable doubt as an element | State contends proof of knowledge is inherent in intent to defraud or harm | Mistake-of-fact defense negates knowledge when reasonably believed authentic | Not reached as dispositive; focus remains on objective standard and defense strategy |
| Whether defense theories conflicted with attempted mistake-of-fact instruction given the record | State asserts alternative theories do not require mistake-of-fact instruction | Defense theory could have benefited from mistake-of-fact instruction | Okonkwo not entitled to instruction under unsettled law; alternative theories compatible with record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes objective standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice prong)
- Baker v. State, 552 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (knowledge of forgery implied; stating doctrine on mens rea)
- Bruno v. State, 845 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (mistake-of-fact instruction unnecessary in some non-third-party forgery cases)
- Stuebgen v. State, 547 S.W.2d 29 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (discusses mens rea in forgery and knowledge implication)
- Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (unsettled law may preclude ineffective-assistance finding for unsettled issues)
- Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (Strickland review and reasonableness in light of record)