"The voir dire process is designed to insure, to the fullest extent possible, that an intelligent, alert, disinterested, impartial, and truthful jury will perform the duty assigned to it." Armstrong v.
#ALULA APP NOT WORKING TRIAL#
Therefore, we are limited to the trial record for our review. Hagos did not file a motion for new trial or adduce any evidence regarding the trial strategy of his counsel. "Absent such an opportunity, an appellate court should not find deficient performance unless the challenged conduct was 'so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.'" Id. Trial counsel should be afforded an opportunity to explain his actions before we declare his actions ineffective. The appellant must produce affirmative proof in the record which rebuts the presumption that counsel's performance resulted from sound or reasonable trial strategy. Generally, the trial record will not suffice to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
#ALULA APP NOT WORKING PROFESSIONAL#
We review the record in light of all the circumstances, but are highly deferential to trial counsel and presume counsel's actions fell within the range of reasonable and professional assistance. The failure to satisfy either prong negates an appellate court's need to consider the other prong. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Hagos must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that trial counsel's performance was deficient because it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficiencies, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Hagos claims his trial counsel failed to: conduct meaningful voir dire object to the admission of extraneous evidence conduct an effective cross-examination of witnesses and object to an improper jury argument. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution guarantee the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. He now brings this direct appeal.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Hagos received a sentence of eight years' confinement and was assessed a fine. Mu oz positively identified Hagos as the perpetrator. At trial, Williams and Parks (1) testified Hagos resembled the man who attempted to rob Mu oz. According to the witnesses, Hagos approached them at a bus stop and attempted to rob Mu oz. At the scene were Paul Fred Williams, Edward Lee Parks, Jose Mu oz, Paul Gorman, and appellant Hagos. On January 17, 2005, San Antonio Police were called to the scene of a fight. On appeal, Hagos asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial in violation of his U.S. From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, TexasĪppellant Alula Fantaye Hagos was convicted by a jury of robbery, and sentenced to eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division and assessed a $2000.000 fine.
0 kommentar(er)
