Rogers, Ex Parte Ronald David
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 856
Tex. Crim. App.2012Background
- Applicant Ronald Rogers pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted aggravated sexual assault; jury sentenced him to 75 years and $10,000 in fines.
- First Court of Appeals affirmed; habeas corpus applications alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment.
- During punishment, evidence of a prior offense and an extraneous rape were admitted; jury sentenced as above.
- DNA exclusion evidence and electronic monitoring records were not adequately presented by counsel; trial court found deficiencies but said no prejudice.
- DNA results excluded Applicant; defense argued trial strategy relied on challenging victim identification and limiting prejudice of extraneous evidence.
- Texas Court grants relief, vacates sentences, and remands for new punishment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel's failure to investigate electronic monitoring and DNA exclusion deficient? | Rogers | Rogers | Yes; deficient performance established |
| Did deficient performance prejudice the punishment verdict? | Rogers | Rogers | Yes; reasonable probability of different punishment |
| Should the extraneous offense testimony have been admitted given potential prejudice? | Rogers | Rogers | No; prejudice substantially outweighed probative value |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Ex parte Cash, 178 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (prejudice necessary to show a different outcome in punishment)
- Ex parte Lane, 303 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (prejudice from prejudicial testimony mandates relief)
- Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (courts may review trial-court findings; strategic considerations)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (prejudice must undermine confidence in outcome)
- Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (standard for evaluating potential prejudice in trial)
- Warden v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (probabilistic standard for prejudice in certain post-conviction claims)
- Sunbury v. State, 88 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (article on relevance and prejudice in punishment evidence)
- Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (precedent on admissibility and relevance of prior offenses)