Peterson, Deon Lewis
WR-84,326-01
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2015Background
- Petitioner Deon Lewis Peterson, pro se, objects to the State's proposed findings of fact and law in cause no. 914922-A before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The objection relies on claims of ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel under Strickland v. Washington and related Supreme Court and Texas authorities.
- Petitioner asserts that the state court's findings would be unreasonable and contrary to federal and state law if adopted, and would require an evidentiary hearing under Art. 11.03(c), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The State acknowledges petitioner's ineffective-assistance claims and argues the proposed findings do not warrant an evidentiary hearing; it also raises laches as a defense.
- Petitioner contends trial counsel Juanita A. Jackson failed to challenge venire member 40 for cause, despite her post-conviction review indicating a viable basis to challenge the juror.
- Petitioner prays the court grant relief consistent with Maldonado and Adams and reverse or otherwise provide relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on IAC claims | Peterson argues denial of hearing is unreasonable | State maintains no need for evidentiary hearing | Not decided |
| failure to challenge venire member 40 constitutes IAC on appeal | Appellate counsel failed to challenge venire 40 per Daigle and related cases | State asserts no merit or stronger issues warranted challenge | Not decided |
| trial counsel's handling of venire 40 and Strickland standards | Jackson reviewed record but did not challenge venire 40; this was ineffective | Counsel's conduct was within reasonable practice and not deficient | Not decided |
| application of laches to post-conviction claims | Laches defense is improper given the trial record and Strickland-based claims | State relies on laches as time-bar defense | Not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (ineffective assistance and appellate review implications)
- Daigle, 848 S.W.2d.691 (Tex. Crim. App., 1993) (requirement of substantial claims on appeal to obtain relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d.114 (Tex. Crim. App., 1985) (guidance on postconviction relief and related claims)
- Adams, 768 S.W.2d.281 (Tex. Crim. App., 1989) (ineffective assistance standards and relief)
- Goodman v. State, 187 S.W.3d.390 (Tex. Crim. App., 2005) (Goodman-style citation reflecting appellate review standards)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (standard for evaluating counsel's failure to raise issues)
- Torres, 943 S.W.2d.649 (Tex. Crim. App., 1997) (requirements for challenging venire-related errors on appeal)
- Alberto, 398 S.W.3d.206 (Tex. Crim. App., 2013) (relevant laches and timing considerations in post-conviction contexts)