West, Damon, WR-78,439-02

Background

Applicant Damon West convicted (jury) of engaging in organized criminal activity based on a series of burglaries; sentenced to 65 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Applicant filed successive habeas applications alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (six asserted grounds, focused on punishment-phase strategy); live evidentiary hearing occurred; trial counsel Edwin Sigel and co-counsel Karen Lambert testified.
Defense theory: "truth defense" and mitigation built around applicant testifying, accepting responsibility, and showing his pre-addiction character; applicant declined to testify at punishment, which defense says doomed mitigation.
Alleged counsel failings: (1) inadequate advice re: pleading guilty; (2) failure to object to certain testimony; (3) eliciting harmful/aggravating testimony; (4) pursuing unreasonable strategies in front of jury; (5) failing to call three proposed witnesses.
State’s position: counsel acted reasonably under Strickland, pursued legitimate strategy (candor to jury, presenting extensive character witnesses and expert mitigation), witness unavailability/credibility issues justified not calling them, and applicant cannot show prejudice because the crimes were numerous and particularly shocking.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plea advice: failure to investigate/explain pleading guilty before jury	West says counsel failed to explain/advocate entering a guilty plea ("slow plea") to mitigate punishment	State: counsel advised West of plea options; West refused plea; choice to plead is defendant’s alone; counsel complied	State contends no deficiency; relief should be denied
Trial objections / elicited testimony	West says counsel failed to object to Detective Travis’s testimony and elicited aggravating details	State: counsel pursued an "open and honest" strategy to gain credibility and anticipated mitigation before jury; some non‑objections were strategic	State contends strategy was reasonable; isolated errors do not show deficiency
Witness selection: failure to call Grayson, Brandon, Danielle	West: these witnesses would have aided mitigation	State: Danielle was unavailable; Grayson had credibility problems (drug history, involvement); Brandon’s jail calls showed unsupportive/damaging attitudes	State contends tactical choice not to call them was reasonable; no deficiency shown
Prejudice under Strickland	West: counsel errors cumulatively deprived him of a more favorable sentence	State: evidence of 51 similar, invasive burglaries and recovered stolen property made severe sentence likely; only West testifying and accepting responsibility would likely have changed outcome	State argues applicant cannot prove a reasonable probability of a different sentence; requests denial of relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part standard: deficiency and prejudice for ineffective assistance claims)
Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Strickland applied on habeas review; evaluate totality of representation)
Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (another attorney’s different tactic alone does not establish ineffective assistance)
Frangias v. State, 392 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (no right to errorless representation; review totality of counsel’s performance)
Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (requirements for proving counsel ineffective for failing to call witnesses)
Miller v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403 (5th Cir. 1987) (trial counsel’s prerogative to select which witnesses to call)