Zane Lynn Barton v. State
03-14-00559-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 22, 2015Background
- Zane Barton was indicted for aggravated assault with serious bodily injury, alleged use of a deadly weapon, and family‑violence enhancement; a Hays County jury found him guilty and assessed life imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine.
- Victim Stefanie Hunt testified that Barton assaulted her over a period of time, causing a severe neck laceration and other injuries; medical testimony described the neck wound as creating a substantial risk of death.
- Police interviews and scene investigation: officers reported Barton behaving nervously/mumbling during interview; Hunt initially told hospital staff a fabricated story blaming a black male but later identified Barton. A pretrial competency/sanity evaluation motion filed by court‑appointed counsel appears in the file but was not ruled on.
- Trial counsel (retained) announced during punishment phase that Barton would testify, the court recessed overnight, and the next day Barton did not testify; defense also alleges trial counsel never informed Barton of a 25‑year plea offer.
- Appellant’s sole appellate point: trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance via (1) failure to investigate competency/sanity, (2) failure to convey plea offer, and (3) promising then failing to call defendant to testify during punishment; he argues cumulative prejudice warrants reversal or remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to investigate competency/sanity | Counsel knew facts (prescription psychotropic meds; office’s motion for evaluation; interview behavior suggesting possible psychosis/paranoia) and unreasonably did not pursue evaluation | State would argue no showing that an evaluation would have altered proceedings or outcome | Appellant argues this is deficient performance; court required to apply Strickland standard (record not decided here on merits) |
| Counsel failed to convey plea offer | Barton asserts counsel never informed him of a 25‑year offer and thus lost the opportunity to accept a plea | State would assert no record that offer was conveyed; prosecution/record may show offer history | Appellant seeks remand for factfinding under TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4 to develop record on plea communication |
| Counsel announced defendant would testify but did not call him | Barton contends there was no strategic justification for announcing testimony then failing to present him the next day | State could argue unknown strategic reasons or developments justified not calling him | Appellant contends this is objectively unreasonable and prejudicial under Strickland |
| Cumulative prejudice from multiple errors | Barton contends combined errors undermine confidence in verdict and punishment (Strickland/gravely doubtful harmlessness) | State would argue harmlessness or lack of reasonable probability of different outcome | Appellant requests new trial or remand; the brief frames but does not supply final appellate ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (defendant entitled to effective assistance of counsel)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (competence standard for counsel in criminal cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reasonableness of attorney investigation measured against known evidence)
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (no reasonable trial strategy can justify objectively unreasonable counsel conduct)
- O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1995) (grant relief when grave doubt exists as to harmlessness of error)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (counsel performance measured by objective standard under prevailing professional norms)