Case law · Highest court · Texas

Thompson v. State

Decided
October 13, 1999
Docket
1532-98
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Texas

Cited 6,146 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that when the record provides no explanation as to the motivation behind trial counsel's actions, an appellate court should be hesitant to declare ineffective assistance of counsel — Ramirez v. State (2002)
  • holding that when the record provides no explanation as to the motivation behind trial counsel’s actions, an appellate court should be hesitant to declare ineffective assistance of counsel — Kesaria v. State (2004)
  • holding that deficient performance is not shown when record provided no references to explain why counsel failed to object to attempts to elicit inadmissible testimony — George Urbina v. State (2008)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

OPINION MANSFIELD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, HOLLAND, WOMACK, and KEASLER, J.J., joined.

Appellant, Marcus Bernard Thompson, was charged by indictment with the murder of Michael Wagner. A jury determined appellant was guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment.[1] An appeal was filed with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals claiming, among other alleged errors, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and thus violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Specifically, appellant argued his trial counsel was ineffective for the single error of failing to object and request a mistrial after the introduction of testimony already declared inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeals agreed with appellant, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the cause for a new trial. This Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred by addressing appellant’s claim of ineffective counsel, and also whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that appellant successfully proved his trial counsel’s performance was deficient, and that, but for this deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

The Relevant Facts The evidence introduced at trial established the following events, which occurred in Harris County, on the evening of June 8, 1994. Stacy Pierre and his girlfriend, Amanda Williams, encountered a group of individuals, appellant included, engaged in [*810] an illegal dice game. Pierre opted to participate while Williams waited inside the couple’s car. As the betting progressed, members of the crowd grew agitated, and Pierre began to fear for his own well-being. He was contemplating the safest way to leave when he saw Michael Wagner, a friend, driving by the game. Pierre flagged Wagner down and asked if he would remain in the area. Wagner agreed and joined Williams in Pierre’s car. Pierre’s worries were realized when appellant grew angry over the amount of Pierre’s final bet, and the game turned into a physical confrontation involving appellant and several individuals. One assailant struck Pierre at least once in the head, but Pierre made his way to the car where Williams and Wagner waited. Wagner, who was in the front passenger’s seat, exited the vehicle to provide Pierre the opportunity to climb into the back seat. With Pierre finally in the car, Wagner had resumed his seat just before a bullet was fired through the car’s windshield and struck Wagner in the chest. Pierre testified at trial that it was appellant who stood in front of the ear and fired one shot from what “looked sort of like a nine millimeter or an Uzi.” As Wagner collapsed forward, Pierre ordered Williams to drive off, and she complied. Not before several hours had passed did Pierre and Williams obtain emergency medical intervention. By that time, however, Wagner was already dead.

Cite this

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (1999)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.