PD-1094-15 PD-1094-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 10/13/2015 2:57:54 PM
Accepted 10/15/2015 2:04:13 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
LISA C. MCMINN JOHN R. MESSINGER CLERK
STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OFFICE OF ASST. STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 13046 STACEY M. GOLDSTEIN
CAPITOL STATION ASST. STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
AUSTIN, TX 78711
(512) 463-1660
October 13, 2015
Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78701
Re: Christopher Earl Darcy v. The State of Texas
Cause No. PD-1094-15
The State’s petition in the above cause presents the question of whether a technical
violation of an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which does not constitute
a total deprivation, is subject to a harm analysis. The Amarillo Court of Appeals in
Darcy concluded that such error is structural and therefore never harmless. After the
State filed its petition, the Eastland Court of Appeals in Rubalcado v. State, No. 11-11-
00028-CR, on remand from this Court, reached the opposite determination. Expressly
disagreeing with Darcy, the court stated that this Court’s decision to remand
(Rubalcado), instead of simply reversing for a new trial, indicated that the error is subject
to a harm analysis. The Eastland Court’s decision has created a split among the lower
courts of appeals and therefore provides further reason for this Court to grant review in
Darcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(a).
/s/ Lisa C. McMinn
State Prosecuting Attorney
cc via electronic service: David M. Green October 15, 2015
R. Walton Weaver