Schlittler, David
PD-1505-14
| Tex. App. | Jul 2, 2015Background
- Appellant David Schlittler, a TDCJ inmate, requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to abate his Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) and remand for an out-of-time motion for new trial.
- Schlittler was convicted under Texas Penal Code § 38.111 (no-contact-with-victim) after a jury trial; he contends prior counsel gave erroneous advice leading to plea and later revocation in an earlier Collin County matter.
- Appointed State Counsel for Offenders represented him at trial and on appeal; Schlittler alleges counsel was ineffective, failed to develop issues, and failed to file a motion for new trial.
- He claims the record lacks critical factual development (e.g., identity of complainant/victim, ambiguity of § 38.111, conflict from TDCJ in-house counsel, and denial of habeas access) that can only be developed via an out-of-time new-trial hearing.
- Schlittler invokes Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 2 and 21 and asks appointment of counsel outside the TDCJ State Counsel for Offenders if the case is remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schlittler) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PDR should be abated and case remanded to allow an out-of-time motion for new trial | Appellant says trial/appellate counsel were ineffective and failed to file a timely motion for new trial; remand is needed to develop issues outside the record | State response not included in this filing; likely opposes delay and contends appellate remedies suffice | Motion seeks abatement and remand; filing requests relief but the document records no court ruling |
| Whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel at critical stages (trial, new-trial period, appeal) | Counsel’s poor relationship, lack of preparation, and failure to consult deprived Schlittler of meaningful representation during the new-trial period and on appeal | State not presented here; general defense would be that counsel fulfilled obligations and remedies (habeas/appellate) exist | Allegation: deprivation of effective assistance during new-trial period; motion asks for reset of appellate timing for new-trial filing; no adjudication in this motion document |
| Whether statutory and charging defects require factual development outside the record (e.g., identity of victim, ambiguity of § 38.111, statutory harmonization) | Schlittler asserts indictment misidentifies victim, § 38.111 is ambiguous and conflicts with other statutes, and such defects cannot be addressed without new-trial fact development | State not briefed here; would assert record and appellate processes suffice to resolve legal questions | Motion requests factual development via remand; no court disposition in this filing |
| Whether TDCJ State Counsel for Offenders presents a conflict or prevents effective representation, warranting appointment of outside counsel | Appellant contends in-house TDCJ counsel creates conflict and has refused to present issues he wishes raised | State not represented in this motion; likely disputes conflict assertion | Request for appointment of outside counsel is made; no ruling recorded in this motion filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defendant not entitled to hybrid representation)
- Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (discussion of hybrid representation and counsel duties)
- State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (grounds for new trial not limited to mandatory list)
- Reves v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in motion for new trial)
- Prudhomme v. State, 28 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (new-trial filing period is a critical stage requiring effective assistance)
- Henson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (same)
- Massingill v. State, 8 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (same)
- Burnett v. State, 959 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] ) (same principle applied)
- Ward v. State, 740 S.W.2d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (remedy for deprivation during new-trial period is to reset appellate time limits)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (right to effective assistance on first appeal as of right)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (right to counsel at critical stages)
- Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1953) (due process principles quoted regarding fairness of process)