Zonge vs. Woodall

Appellant, a pro se prisoner, brought this legal malpractice action against the appointed appellate counsel in his criminal case. Appellant argued that his conviction would have been reversed but for Appellee's failure to assert in his criminal appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by forcing Appellant to attend trial in prison garb. That argument was made in a supplemental brief filed by Appellant's new appellate counsel and was rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The trial court in this malpractice action granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. We affirm because Appellant has failed to establish a breach of the standard of care or that he was damaged by counsel's decision not to make an argument which was, in fact, made by new counsel and was unsuccessful.