Gerald Ray Barrow v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court of Hale County (dissenting memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00046-CR GERALD RAY BARROW, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012C-427, Honorable Bill Coleman, Presiding November 4, 2015 DISSENTING OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. This appeal was originally abated when the State appealed a new trial granted by the trial court based upon an implied finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 16, 2014, this court issued a plurality opinion in State v. Barrow, finding the trial court abused its discretion when it granted that new trial.1 1 Barrow’s motion for State v. Barrow, No. 07-13-00147-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7762 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 16, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication), Justice Campbell writing for the court. Chief Justice Quinn filed a concurring opinion and Justice Pirtle filed a dissenting opinion. rehearing was overruled,2 and a petition for discretionary review was refused by the Court of Criminal Appeals.3 The abatement having now been lifted, this court has once again found that Barrow’s ineffective assistance claim fails because “the court did not have before it evidence of [trial counsel’s] reasons for focusing on urging the jury to honor Shirley Barrow’s wishes rather than pursuing a claim of self-defense.” With myopic precision, the court again focuses on the absence of direct evidence concerning counsel’s trial strategy, ignoring all other evidence upon which a finding of ineffective assistance could be based. Because I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that direct evidence of trial counsel’s trial strategy is some sort of talisman essential to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, I respectfully dissent. See Ex parte Bryant, 448 S.W.3d 29, 3940 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that “when no reasonable strategy could justify trial counsel’s conduct . . . counsel’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of law, regardless of whether the record adequately reflects the trial counsel’s subjective reasons for acting as he did”). Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish. 2 State v. Barrow, No. 07-13-00147-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9332 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 20, 2014, pet ref’d) (with notation that Pirtle, J., would grant the motion for rehearing). 3 State v. Barrow, No. PD-1268-14, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 70 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2015). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
