Kenneth Ray Strickland v. Texas

Petitioner, who is serving a 99-year sentence for attempted escape, filed a state habeas corpus application alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to move for a directed verdict because the evidence was legally insufficient and (2) conceding during summation that he was guilty. The habeas judge— who also presided at the trial—recommended relief after finding that he may have granted a motion for directed verdict if it had been made, as the evidence was legally insufficient, and that counsel was ineffective in conceding guilt during summation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) summarily denied relief on the basis that “the [trial court’s] findings and conclusions are not supported by the record.” Its summary rejection without explanation of the trial judge’s favorable dispositive fact findings raises the important constitutional question reserved in United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681, n.7 (1980). The questions presented are: I. Whether it violates due process for an appellate court to reject without explanation a trial court’s favorable dispositive fact findings that were based, in part, on its personal recollection of the trial. II. Whether the TCCA’s summary rejection of the trial court’s findings and conclusions that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to move for a directed verdict and conceding guilt during summation misapplied this Court’s ineffective assistance of counsel precedent.