Legal Opinion

Menefield v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)

Decided July 13, 2011No. 07-10-0378-CRPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BRIAN QUINN, Chief Justice.

Billy Don Menefield appeals his conviction for possessing a controlled substance in an amount of less than one gram by contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he complains of his trial counsel 1) failing to object to the admission of the laboratory’s drug report, 2) failing to object to inadmissible punishment enhancement evidence, and 3) introducing evidence of extraneous offenses during the guilt/innocence phase. We consider only the first ground and reverse the judgment.

We review claims of ineffective assistance under the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Andrews v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
  5. Mata v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Menefield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2012
  2. Duty v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2012
  3. Jimmy Earl Duty v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2012
  4. Jimmy Earl Duty v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2012
  5. Menefield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2012

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API