Barfield v. State

Summary

This document is a Petition for Discretionary Review filed by Lisa Ann Barfield in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals following affirmance of her DWI conviction by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. It challenges the denial of a continuance based on trial counsel's head injury, admission of evidence referencing prior offenses, references to a prior trial, display of a MADD plaque, alleged judicial bias, and the definition of reasonable doubt in the jury charge.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance because Barfield failed to show specific actual prejudice to her defense or that she was substantially deprived of counsel.
2. Barfield failed to establish prejudice from counsel's failure to object to dispatcher notes referring to prior arrests and evading arrest because the record did not show that the jury actually saw or considered the notes.
3. Barfield failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel had a reasonable defensive strategy for introducing and using the evidence of her repeated requests for counsel.
4. Barfield failed to show that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the reference to the prior trial because she did not demonstrate that the trial court would have committed harmful error by overruling an objection to the mere reference.
5. The visible MADD plaque did not constitute fundamental error requiring reversal, and the record did not establish that the trial judge was biased or that judicial impropriety probably prejudiced Barfield.
6. The trial court erred by including the definition of reasonable doubt stating that reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, but the preserved error caused no actual harm.
7. The court of appeals had authority to modify the judgment to remove the notation "BAC .08" because no evidence established a specific blood-alcohol content.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance requested because defense counsel had recently suffered injuries and was taking medication.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to dispatcher notes containing references to prior DWI and evading-arrest incidents.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for introducing or failing to object to evidence of Barfield's invocation of her right to counsel.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to references to Barfield's prior trial.
5. Whether displaying a MADD plaque in the courtroom constituted reversible fundamental error or demonstrated judicial bias.
6. Whether the trial judge's other alleged actions demonstrated bias and denied Barfield a fair trial.
7. Whether the trial court erred by defining reasonable doubt in the jury charge and, if so, whether the error caused actual harm.
8. Whether the judgment should be modified to remove a notation of a .08 blood-alcohol content that was unsupported by the evidence.

Disposition

affirmed