Check Texas law, it wasn't Federal Court. And I won, it was dismissed and I have no Conviction, so you just have to deal with that, no matter what anything says, the whole case was dismissed. I have 0 Convictions for anything ever.
And again, the Lawyer was known for corrupt actions that involved having people she was assigned to for Free, she had waive their rights. She never actually fought for anyone she was assigned to, and she lost her job and stopped practicing law because of it. So the case could have gone on to a higher court on the basis of this:
Supreme Court opinion in Cuyler V Sullivan
" But it held that a criminal defendant is entitled to reversal of his conviction whenever he makes "`some showing of a possible conflict of interest or prejudice, however remote. . . .'" Id. at 519, quoting Walker v. United States, 422 F.2d 374, 375 (CA3) (per curiam), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 915 (1970). See also United States ex rel. Hart v. Davenport, 478 F.2d 203, 210 (CA3 1973). The court acknowledged that resting at the close of the prosecutor's case "would have been a legitimate tactical decision if made by independent counsel." [Footnote 3] Nevertheless, the court thought that action alone raised a possibility of conflict sufficient to prove a violation of Sullivan's Sixth Amendment rights. The court found support for its conclusion in Peruto's admission that concern for Sullivan's codefendants had affected his judgment that Sullivan should not present a defense. To give weight to DiBona's contrary testimony, the court held, "would be to . . . require a showing of actual prejudice." 593 F.2d at 522.