Ineffective Assistance of Counsel In Sentencing

– Blizzard and Zimmerman Attorneys

Sentence Reduced After Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted

A powerful win for justice, second chances, and compassionate sentencing.

Attorneys Jacob Blizzard and Morgan Walker successfully secured post conviction relief for a client whose original sentence was shaped by ineffective assistance of counsel.

Through a strategically filed 11.07 writ of habeas corpus, they achieved a significant sentence reduction - and a real path forward.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - In Sentencing

Case Overview

Background: A Young Refugee Facing a 13-Year Prison Sentence

At just 18 years old, our client - an African refugee - was sentenced to 13 years in prison after pleading guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

But his original attorney failed him during the most critical phase of his case: sentencing.

None of the profound, life-shaping details that could have provided context or mitigation were ever presented, including:

  • Surviving genocide as a child
  • Enduring untreated trauma for years
  • Witnessing the murder of his best friend
  • Lack of guidance, stability, and mental-health support after arriving in the United States

This history wasn’t an excuse - but it was essential to understanding how trauma contributed to the offense.

And the court never heard it.

Building the Path to Freedom

The Legal Strategy: Exposing Ineffective Assistance in Sentencing

Jacob Blizzard and Morgan Walker filed a comprehensive 11.07 writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the client’s constitutional right to effective representation was violated when mitigating evidence was never presented to the judge.

Their writ demonstrated:

  • The original attorney’s failure to investigate or present critical background information
  • How that failure impacted the sentencing outcome
  • Why a new sentencing hearing was legally and morally required

Their work brought the truth to light.

The Outcome

Sentence Reduced - Freedom on the Horizon

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with our argument and reversed the original sentence.

At the resentencing hearing, the court finally heard the full story - context, trauma history, and proof of rehabilitation.

As a result:

  • The sentence was reduced from 13 years to 9 years
  • Because he had already served 4 years, he became eligible for parole in 6 months instead of 2.5 more years
  • 2025 Update: He is now on parole and working toward certification for a job in the construction industry

A second chance - earned, deserved, and secured.

Why Our Strategy Worked

Our winning approach focused on:

  • Proving ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing
  • Presenting essential mitigation evidence that should have been introduced originally
  • Showing the client's rehabilitation, growth, and readiness for reintegration

This case demonstrates how powerful a properly filed 11.07 writ can be when the truth is finally presented.

Attorney Jacob Blizzard’s Expertise

Jacob Blizzard is dual board certified in both criminal law and criminal appeals - a distinction earned by fewer than 0.1% of Texas attorneys. His expertise in ineffective assistance claims, post-conviction appeals, and writ litigation routinely leads to life-changing results for clients across Texas.

Our Commitment to Justice

This case reflects the heart of our mission: to stand up for individuals who were underserved, overlooked, or misrepresented by the legal system.

If you or someone you love needs help with an 11.07 writ, an ineffective assistance claim, or any post conviction relief, contact Blizzard & Zimmerman Attorneys today for a risk free assessment of your loved one's case.

Your second chance may begin with a single conversation.

Disclaimer

Attorneys Jacob Blizzard, Sarah Durham, and Morgan Walker work tirelessly to achieve the greatest possible results for each of our clients and their families. This is just one of their successful results, settlements, and verdicts. Every case and client is unique and depends upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Clients may or may not obtain the same or similar results in each case.