Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jennifer Scott v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-03-00279-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 15, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court
Jennifer Scott appeals the order revoking her probation after a guilty plea for failing to identify herself as a fugitive. Initially sentenced to 90 days in jail, her sentence was suspended in favor of one year of probation. The State later moved to revoke her probation, citing violations of six conditions, leading to a 90-day jail sentence after a hearing. Scott claims ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds: first, that her attorney failed to object to the admissibility of urinalysis results showing drug use, and second, that he led her to admit the truth of some allegations in the motion to revoke. The court applies the standard from Strickland v. Washington to assess the claims of ineffective assistance. It finds that Scott's attorney likely did not object to the urinalysis results because Scott had already confessed to drug use in multiple written statements, making such an objection potentially strategic rather than an error. Additionally, Scott did not demonstrate how the outcome would have changed if the evidence had been excluded. Regarding the admission of allegations, the court notes that Scott failed to provide reasons for her counsel’s questioning strategy or to show how it prejudiced her, especially in light of her prior confessions. The court concludes that Scott did not meet her burden to show that counsel’s actions were unreasonable or that they affected the trial's outcome. Ultimately, the court affirms the trial court's judgment, maintaining that Scott did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel.