Wilson, Carl Anthony, PD-1263-16

Carl Anthony Wilson was convicted after a jury trial of felony DWI (third or more) and sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment.
Stop and field-sobriety evidence: deputy observed alcohol odor, slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes; blood alcohol 0.153.
At punishment the State argued parole-related scenarios (e.g., eligibility at 15 years and supervision if paroled); defense counsel did not object.
The jury charge correctly instructed jurors that they may consider the existence of parole law but not how parole/good-time would apply to this particular defendant, and that lawyers’ statements are not evidence.
Wilson appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the State’s allegedly improper parole-related argument. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding any improper argument was harmless and that Wilson failed to show Strickland prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument about parole	Wilson: prosecutor improperly speculated about when/if he would be paroled; counsel's failure to object was deficient and prejudiced punishment (60 yrs functionally equivalent to life)	State: prosecutor's argument largely restated parole law and hypothetical eligibility; jury charge properly limited consideration; any error was harmless given prior convictions and evidence	Court of Appeals: assume arguable deficiency but no Strickland prejudice; prosecutor's comments were largely permissible and jury instructions cured any error; conviction and 60-yr sentence affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (record on direct appeal rarely develops ineffectiveness claims)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (jury may consider existence of parole law but may not consider how parole/good time applies to particular defendant; harm test for improper argument)
Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ineffectiveness for failing to object to improper argument)
Branch v. State, 335 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (finding counsel ineffective for failing to object to improper parole argument)
Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (presumption of strategic motive if record silent)
Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1993) (large discretionary sentencing ranges increase risk that counsel errors affect punishment)
Taylor v. State, 911 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (practical equivalence argument regarding long fixed terms and life sentences)