Ex Parte Carl Eddie Miller, Applicant

Summary

The Court affirmed the habeas judge’s finding that trial counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient and denied relief on that claim, but held that appellate counsel’s failure to raise a meritorious challenge to the habitual‑offender enhancement was ineffective assistance, granting the applicant a new appeal to contest his thirty‑year sentence. The decision applied the Strickland two‑prong test and Texas law on enhancement sequencing. Justice Keasler, in a partial concurrence/dissent, argued that the appellate counsel’s strategic decision was reasonable and that relief should not be granted.