In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NOS. 01-02-00041-CR

                                                          01-02-00042-CR

                                                          01-02-00043-CR

JOHN PAUL RIVERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 867831, 878870, & 867829

CONCURRING OPINION

          I join the majority opinion regarding Layton Duer’s representation. I merely concur in the majority opinion disposition and judgment regarding Gerald Scheve’s representation. I would hold that, assuming without deciding that Scheve’s representation was ineffective, appellant has not met the second prong of the Strickland test with respect to that representation.

          Appellant makes no specific assertion concerning how Mr. Scheve’s alleged ineffectiveness harmed him. The closest he comes is his testimony at the PSI hearing:

          “The [prosecutor] said I couldn’t plead guilty to one and not guilty to the other two because from my understanding Mr. Chevy [sic] said that was going to be hard to argue the fact of that on the trial.”

What appellant does not say is that he would not have pleaded guilty to any or all of the three charges but for Mr. Scheve’s advice. Based on this record and appellant’s brief, I believe that there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had Scheve’s representation been errorless. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 2068 (1984).

                                                             Adele Hedges

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan.

Justice Hedges concurring.

Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).