Woodward v. State

I respectfully dissent.

The majority relies on United States v. Cronic and Gobert v. State for the proposition that we must conduct a harm analysis before determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The majority’s holding not only misreads Cronic, but flies in the face of the long-held rule in Texas criminal jurisprudence that a harm analysis is conducted only after we determine that there is error and the nature of that error. The majority first decides there was no harm, and then concludes there was no error.

I do not agree that Cronic stands for…