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 trial court's judgments that adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to two years of confinement for each offense, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation hearing. King was initially placed on four years of community supervision for the firearm theft after his plea on August 1, 2008. Following a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and subsequent medication, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication due to multiple violations of his supervision terms, including DUI, public intoxication, alcohol consumption, failure to report, and non-payment of fees. This petition was dismissed in December 2008, allowing King another chance, with a recommendation for long-term treatment for substance abuse. King later pleaded guilty to criminal mischief on January 30, 2009, receiving three years of community supervision, which required successful completion of substance abuse treatment. He entered a treatment program on February 2, 2009, but violated program rules multiple times, leading to his unsuccessful discharge in June 2009. The State subsequently filed a petition to adjudicate his guilt, citing this discharge as a violation. During the evidentiary hearing, testimony indicated that his negative behavior might not be directly tied to his medication. The trial court found King in violation of his supervision terms, adjudicated him guilty on both charges, and sentenced him to two years of confinement, with sentences running concurrently. The appeal followed this decision. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must demonstrate that his attorney's performance fell below professional standards and that there is a reasonable probability that the trial's outcome would have been different absent this deficiency, as articulated in Strickland v. Washington. The appellant argued that his counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert witness to explain that his rule violations were likely due to being taken off bipolar medication and for failing to properly present his medical records. He claimed that he received the maximum sentences, which would have been reduced with effective counsel. However, the appellant did not prove a reasonable probability that his punishment would have differed had his counsel acted as he suggested. The record indicated that the appellant acknowledged he could not attribute all violations to his medication discontinuation and had committed rule violations even while medicated. Although the trial counsel did not present expert testimony, evidence was provided by the appellant and his family regarding his mental state on and off medication. A letter from the appellant’s doctor linking his treatment program failure to medication discontinuation was submitted but did not sway the trial court, which denied the motion for a new trial. Consequently, the appellant failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome would have changed, leading to the overruling of his claims and affirmation of the trial court's judgment.