Romie Richardson v. the State of Texas

Summary

The memorandum opinion addresses Romie Richardson’s appeals from convictions for burglary of a vehicle and unlawful possession of a firearm in two Denton County criminal cases. The court rejects his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, including his challenge to counsel’s failure to seek suppression of body-camera evidence. The court also modifies the bills of costs by deleting a $55 subpoena-service fee and specifying that costs are not payable until Richardson’s release from confinement.

Holdings

1. Richardson failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress because he did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion would have been granted and that the remaining evidence would have been insufficient to support the convictions.
2. Richardson failed to show that counsel's opening-statement reference to prior imprisonment or questioning concerning warrants constituted deficient performance resulting in prejudice.
3. Counsel's untimely or procedurally defective objection to the portion of the body-camera video concerning Richardson's shirt change did not establish ineffective assistance.
4. Richardson failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's handling of evidence of two prior convictions because the record did not affirmatively establish deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a more favorable punishment verdict.
5. The totality of counsel's representation did not satisfy both Strickland prongs, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richardson's motion for new trial.
6. The $55 subpoena-service fee was improperly assessed and had to be deleted from the bill of cost in case number F23-3731-362 because the subpoena returns did not comply with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 24.04.
7. The bills of cost were not invalid and did not conflict with the judgments merely because they were issued before Richardson's release from confinement; however, they were modified to state expressly that the costs were not payable until his release.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress portions of the officers' body-camera videos and Richardson's statements.
2. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance through opening-statement comments about Richardson's prior imprisonment and questioning concerning warrants.
3. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by objecting untimely or ineffectively to a portion of a body-camera video.
4. Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by permitting or failing to object to evidence of prior convictions during the punishment phase.
5. Whether the totality of counsel's performance deprived Richardson of a fair trial.
6. Whether the $55 subpoena-service fee was properly assessed when the subpoena returns did not comply with statutory requirements.
7. Whether the bills of cost were invalid or immediately payable despite the judgments providing that costs were due upon Richardson's release from confinement.

Disposition

affirmed