Rockins v. State

Full title: STEPHEN ANTHONY ROCKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Dec 30, 2003

No. 06-03-00041-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 30, 2003)

Opinion

No. 06-03-00041-CR

Submitted: December 22, 2003.

Decided: December 30, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH.

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court, Gregg County, Texas, Trial Court No. 29979-B.

Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS.

On October 19, 2002, Stephen Anthony Rockins and his wife, Cynthia, argued in the bedroom of their apartment. Rockins shoved her into an ironing board, and she retaliated by hitting him in the head with a can of spray starch. Rockins shoved her again and got her gun from beneath the bed.¹ While he was bent over trying to get the gun, Cynthia jumped on his back. When Rockins stood up, she came off his back into a standing position. Rockins turned and shot Cynthia five times, the shots hitting her in the chest, stomach, hand, thigh, and arm. Rockins refused to call for help and stayed in the apartment for forty minutes, during which time Cynthia says he threatened to beat her with a crutch if she did not remove her wedding ring from her wounded hand. When he did leave, he told two women outside to call an ambulance because he had shot his wife. Meanwhile, Cynthia crawled into the living room and dialed 9-1-1. She spent seven days in the hospital and ultimately recovered from her wounds. Rockins traveled to Sherman, Texas, where he turned himself in to authorities. On January 21, 2003, Rockins pled guilty to attempted murder² — from which this appeal was taken — and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon³ and pled true to the enhancements. On February 3, 2003, the trial court sentenced Rockins to life in prison for the offense of attempted murder with a deadly weapon and to forty years' confinement for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The sentences are to run concurrently. Rockins' appellate counsel filed with this Court a brief asserting that no arguable grounds of error are found in the record of the proceedings below. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In accordance with Anders, counsel informed Rockins of his right to file his own brief. Rockins did so and now contends that, with respect to his conviction for attempted murder, he was denied effective assistance of counsel by trial counsel's failure to object to the absence of the State's motion to consolidate the offenses.

1 The gun belonged to Cynthia and was kept under the bed for self-defense, and both Stephen and Cynthia knew it. Rockins' version of events places his wife in the role of the aggressor. He says that she hit him in the head with a crutch while he was napping and that she then went for the gun. He then pushed her and was able to get the gun instead.

2 Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 15.01(a) (Vernon 2003). The offense of attempted murder was enhanced by two prior felony convictions to carry a punishment range of twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life in prison. Tex. Pen. Code. Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004).

3 See trial court cause number 29,981-B. For this offense, the trial court sentenced Rockins to forty years in the Texas Department Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. His appeal of this conviction involves the same point of error asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. See Rockins v. State, cause number 06-03-00042-CR.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

We evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). See Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Counsel's assistance will be held ineffective if an appellant shows that (1) trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. An appellant bears the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence. Moore v. State, 694 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex.Crim. App. 1985). The State may prosecute a defendant in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.02(a) (Vernon 2003). If, however, the State seeks to consolidate offenses charged in two separate charging instruments, it must provide written notion of its intent to bring such an action not less than thirty days before trial. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.02(b) (Vernon 2003). The Texas Penal Code provides:

(a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Except as provided by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently.

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.03(a) (Vernon 2003). None of the exceptions found in subsection (b) are applicable to Rockins' case. A defendant has the right to a severance of the offenses brought under Section 3.02(b). Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.04(a) (Vernon 2003). If a defendant exercises this right, however, Section 3.03 will no longer apply, and it lies within the trial court's discretion to order sentences to run either concurrently or consecutively. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.04(b) (Vernon 2003).

Application

Rockins correctly points out that the State was required to provide notice thirty days before trial of its intent to prosecute the two offenses in a single criminal action because the offenses were charged under separate charging indictments. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.02(b). This notice is merely a procedural requirement which can be waived if a defendant so chooses either affirmatively or by inaction. See LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Therefore, when trial counsel did not object to the State's failure to provide the notice thirty days before trial of its intent to prosecute the two offenses in one action, Rockins waived the requirement. Rockins considers his trial counsel's waiver of the notice requirement as the error that "did him in." He argues that, had his attorney objected to the State's failure, he could have moved to sever the offense and would likely have received a lesser sentence. Rockins fails to recognize, though, that, had counsel insisted on severance of the offenses, he would be subject to "stacked" sentences. Trial counsel's acquiescence to the joinder despite the State's failure to provide the proper notice was not an error that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. To the contrary, this was likely a sound trial strategy that could have spared his client a cumulative sentence had the causes been severed.

Conclusion

Rockins was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We overrule his sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.