Anthony Autrie Bell v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-04-00815-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 23, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On June 23, 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of Anthony Autrie Bell for resisting arrest and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced Bell to 180 days of confinement and a $300 fine, but suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision. 

The case arose from an incident on May 19, 1999, where Shirley Douglas reported that Bell and a group of youths were disrupting her yard while playing basketball. When officers R. Morales and S. Childers arrived, Douglas informed Morales of Bell's disrespectful behavior. Morales initially spoke to Bell without handcuffing him, but after gathering sufficient information, he attempted to arrest Bell for disorderly conduct. When Morales asked Bell to place his hands behind his back, Bell pushed the officer and fled into a nearby wooded area despite officers' commands to stop.

During the trial, Bell's defense included testimony from his mother and friends, who claimed that Douglas had instigated the altercation. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, rejecting Bell's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Jernigan contacted the police regarding an incident involving Douglas and appellant. Upon police arrival, she observed an officer speaking with both parties before handcuffing appellant and placing him in a patrol car. Jernigan then returned inside her house and did not witness the remainder of the incident. Witnesses Bundage, Campbell, and Hightower, walking nearby, saw officers with a patrol car in front of appellant's house. They observed appellant being let out of the patrol car without handcuffs. Campbell recalled seeing the officer place appellant in the car and then release him, though he was unsure of the date. Bundage and Hightower noted they were at least 75 to 100 feet away from the scene.

Appellant recounted that on May 19, 1999, during his high school graduation celebration, he heard Douglas use a derogatory term towards him, which prompted his response. Jernigan, hearing the exchange, called the police after Douglas yelled at her. Approximately 30 minutes later, officers arrived, first at Douglas's house, then at appellant's, where they requested identification and appellant's statement. One officer handcuffed appellant while checking for outstanding warrants, then released him after determining he was free to go, without informing him of an arrest.

Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his attorney failed to call key witnesses and did not communicate with him until two hours before the trial. To prove ineffective assistance, appellant must show that his counsel's performance was below professional standards and that the outcome would likely have been different but for these errors, according to the Strickland standard. Both prongs of this test must be satisfied for the claim to succeed, and the review of counsel's representation is highly deferential.

A Strickland claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must be well-supported by the record, which should clearly demonstrate the validity of the claim. When the record is silent regarding counsel’s strategy, courts will not speculate on the reasons behind counsel's actions. A significant error by counsel can qualify as ineffective assistance, even without a detailed record of their rationale. However, without evidence showing that specific witnesses were available and that their testimony would have benefitted the defense, claims based on the failure to call witnesses are typically not upheld. The decision to call witnesses is often seen as a strategic choice. In this case, the appellant argued ineffective assistance for not calling two key witnesses who were allegedly present during the incident. However, the appellant did not provide evidence of the witnesses' availability or the potential benefit of their testimony, leading to the conclusion that counsel’s performance was not deficient. The appellant's claim regarding the failure of counsel to communicate and prepare for trial similarly lacked firm evidence in the record, resulting in the overruling of both points of error raised by the appellant.

Appellant’s motion for a new trial claimed the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, but there is no record indicating the trial court ruled on this motion. Consequently, the court could not find counsel's performance deficient based on the challenged grounds. Additionally, appellant failed to demonstrate that, had it not been for counsel’s performance, there was a reasonable probability the trial outcome would have differed. To succeed in a claim of ineffective assistance, an appellant must meet both prongs of the Strickland test, which appellant did not fulfill. Therefore, the claim of ineffective assistance fails, leading to the overruling of appellant’s second point of error. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. The ruling was made by a panel including Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Hanks, with a note that it should not be published per Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).