Johnson v. Texas (original by judge mcclure iii)
Annotate this CaseIn 2016, complainant Veronica Lopez and her husband, Jorge, drove their truck to a tire store called Truck Zone. Jorge went into the store while Veronica waited in the passenger seat of the truck. The truck was unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, and the motor running. A short time later, Veronica saw Appellant Jamaile Johnson riding his bicycle toward the truck. Appellant opened the driver’s side door of the truck and got inside. Veronica noticed that Appellant had a screwdriver, and although he did not point it directly at her, she testified that he threatened her with it and that she was very scared. Veronica asked if Appellant worked for the store and he told her that he did not, and then was asked by Appellant if she wanted to go for a ride. Veronica testified that she was scared and she yelled and attempted to get out of the truck by opening her door and hanging onto it while Appellant accelerated backwards and forward. She landed on her feet, uninjured, and Appellant drove off. Jorge called the police, who located the truck a short time later. As the officers approached the truck, Appellant drove off. Law enforcement followed Appellant for about forty-five minutes until he pulled over and was arrested. The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ review was whether the court of appeals failed to apply the standard of review correctly in its analysis of Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. To this, the Court responded in the affirmative: the medical records that the court of appeals relied upon were not included in the record; it was unclear that counsel’s performance was actually deficient; and it was equally unclear as to whether there was prejudice in the failure to secure admission of those medical records. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed that of the trial court.
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.