Appellate advocacy for trial errors, sentencing issues, and post-conviction relief.
A trial conviction is not always the end of the case. Direct appeals review the trial record for legal errors. Post-conviction writs raise issues that fall outside the record, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Both have strict deadlines and procedural requirements that make early action critical.
After a final felony judgment, the defendant generally has 30 days to file a notice of appeal. The case then proceeds to the appropriate court of appeals, which reviews the trial record for legal error. Misdemeanor convictions appeal first to the county court at law in some counties, or directly to the court of appeals in others.
Direct appeals review only what is in the record: the testimony, exhibits, motions, and rulings made at trial. Issues commonly raised on direct appeal include legal sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, jury charge errors, prosecutorial misconduct apparent in the record, and sentencing errors. Issues outside the record have to be raised through post-conviction proceedings.
Appellate courts apply different standards of review to different issues. Legal sufficiency challenges ask whether a rational jury could have found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jury charge errors are reviewed for harm under different standards depending on whether the error was preserved at trial.
Understanding the applicable standard of review for each issue is critical because it determines what the appellant has to show on appeal. Some issues are easier to win than others based on standard alone.
Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs post-conviction habeas corpus for felony convictions. The writ allows the defendant to challenge the conviction based on issues that could not have been raised on direct appeal, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, actual innocence, and certain due process violations.
Unlike direct appeals, habeas proceedings can include new evidence outside the trial record. Witness affidavits, expert reports, and documentary evidence can be presented to support the claim. The trial court conducts whatever proceedings are needed and recommends findings to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which decides the application.
Under the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants have the right to effective assistance of counsel. When trial counsel's performance falls below objective standards and the deficient performance prejudiced the outcome, the conviction can be set aside.
Ineffective assistance claims are demanding. The defendant must show both that counsel performed deficiently and that there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the deficient performance. Common claims include failure to investigate, failure to call witnesses, failure to file suppression motions, failure to communicate plea offers, and conflicts of interest.
After exhausting state remedies, federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is available for federal constitutional violations. Federal habeas has its own one-year statute of limitations and stricter standards of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Federal habeas is not a second appeal. Federal courts can grant relief only when the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. The standard is deliberately deferential to state court rulings.
Talk to an attorney who handles these cases regularly. Consultation requests are reviewed personally and treated with full confidentiality.
Request a Consultation