Shahid Karriem Ansari, III v. State
06-14-00220-CR
Tex. App.Aug 19, 2015Background
- Appellant Shahid Karriem Ansari pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation on July 3, 2012 and received a plea-bargained 6-year deferred probation.
- The State filed motions to revoke probation; a partial revocation in 2013 resulted in 90 days in county jail and dismissal of that motion. A final revocation hearing was held November 20, 2014.
- Newly appointed trial counsel (Chris Castanon) was appointed November 6, 2014; an amended motion to revoke adding obstruction and possession of marijuana allegations was filed November 13, 2014 (eight days before the final hearing).
- At the November 2014 hearing the appellant pleaded true to several allegations; the trial court revoked community supervision and sentenced appellant to 7 years in TDCJ.
- The appellant’s appellate brief challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel for (1) inadequate investigation and failure to elicit mitigating evidence and (2) failure to challenge revocation based on a vague/unenforceable anger-management condition. The brief seeks reversal and a new revocation hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or present mitigating evidence before revocation | Counsel failed to perform even minimal investigation after appointment, did not develop mitigation (family responsibilities, probation status on other charges, relative severity of new allegations), and had too little time before hearing to prepare | The record is undeveloped; when a defendant pleads true less investigation may be required and strategic choices are presumptively reasonable | Trial court revoked probation and imposed 7-year sentence; appellate relief sought. Appellate disposition not in this brief. |
| 2. Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging revocation based on alleged failure to complete anger-management classes | The probation order did not specify timing, number of classes, or hours, so appellant lacked notice; counsel failed to attack paragraph alleging noncompliance which could have undermined the sentence | The probation condition appears in the order as "ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES" and appellant admitted noncompliance at hearing; trial court accepted revocation | Trial court relied on the allegation in revoking probation; appellate outcome not included in this record. |
| 3. Whether new allegations filed shortly before counsel’s appointment required more preparation time | The amended motion raising marijuana possession appeared only eight days after counsel’s appointment and one week before the final hearing, precluding meaningful investigation | State would assert counsel had opportunity to cross-examine and appellant pleaded true to some allegations; courts often find limited investigation acceptable when pleas are entered | Trial court proceeded and revoked probation; appellate relief sought based on inadequate preparation. |
| 4. Prejudice under Strickland: whether counsel’s errors probably affected outcome | But for counsel’s failures (investigation, challenge to anger-management allegation), there is a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence or continued probation | State would argue no reasonable probability of different outcome given admissions/pleas and the trial court’s discretion | Trial court revoked; appellant contends Strickland prejudice established; appellate decision not provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (defendant bears burden to prove counsel ineffective by preponderance)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (direct-appeal records are often undeveloped for ineffective-assistance review)
- Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (prejudice must be shown by preponderance; errors must undermine confidence in outcome)
- Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (courts defer to counsel’s reasonable strategic decisions)
