Okay, I thought Thompson was the silver bullet with regard to ineffective assistance claims in direct appeals. Boy was I wrong! Now we have Bone, a better name, stronger language. I've read it four times and I laugh louder and longer each time.

quote:

---

"If a reviewing court can speculate about the existence of further mitigating evidence, then it just as logically might speculate about the existence of further aggravating evidence. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not built on retrospective speculation; they must 'be firmly founded in the record.' That record must itself affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness."

---

I don't think a brief need say much more than that. Thank you Judge Cochran.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 06-21-02 at .]

I just love how Judge Cochran seems to be saying the San Antonio Ct of App's was completely "ineffective" as an appellate court in its decision. Oh the irony.
With this set of facts, it appears clear to me the San Antonio court just did not like the result (90 yrs). So they perverted the law to suit their purpose of overturning the sentence.

By the way, I find myself agreeing with Judge Cochran almost all of the time. That is something that I cannot say about the rest of the Court, except of course for the Great One, Judge Keller. Both of them seem extremely bright and concientious.