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.
Kurtis Evan King v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-09-00329-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 31, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Kurtis Evan King received deferred adjudication community supervision after pleading guilty to theft of a firearm and criminal mischief. He appeals the judgments that adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to two years of confinement for each offense, claiming ineffective assistance from his counsel during the revocation hearing. Initially, King was placed on four years of community supervision after his guilty plea on August 1, 2008. Following a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and subsequent treatment, the State filed a petition alleging multiple violations of community supervision, including DUI, public intoxication, alcohol consumption, and failure to report or pay fees. The State later dismissed this petition, recommending King be placed in a long-term treatment facility. On January 30, 2009, King pled guilty to criminal mischief, receiving three years of community supervision that mandated successful completion of substance abuse treatment. After entering a treatment program, he violated its rules multiple times, leading to his unsuccessful discharge. The State filed a new petition on June 18, 2009, citing his discharge as a violation of community supervision terms. During the evidentiary hearing, testimonies indicated that King's behavior was not necessarily linked to his medication, and concerns were raised about his ability to complete supervision. The trial court found him in violation of community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to two years of confinement in each case, with sentences running concurrently. The appeal follows these judgments. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below professional standards and that this deficiency likely altered the trial's outcome, as outlined in Strickland v. Washington. The appellant claimed ineffective assistance due to trial counsel's failure to call an expert witness regarding the impact of his bipolar medication on rule violations and to properly present medical records for admissibility. Despite receiving maximum sentences, the appellant did not show a reasonable probability that different actions by counsel would have resulted in shorter sentences. The record indicated that the appellant admitted some violations occurred while on medication, and evidence was presented by the appellant's family regarding his behavior on and off medication. Additionally, a doctor’s letter stating the appellant's treatment failure was linked to medication discontinuation was submitted, but the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. Ultimately, the appellant failed to prove that counsel's alleged errors would have changed the trial's outcome, leading to the overruling of his claims and affirmation of the trial court's judgments.