Strickland test in Texas

2026A failure to make a showing under either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim for ineffective assistance. 466 U.S. at 697 ; Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. Crim.

2026A failure to make a showing under either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim for ineffective assistance. 466 U.S. at 697 ; Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. Crim.

2026We begin our Strickland analysis with the presumption that counsel was competent and that his decisions “fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim.

2026To meet the first prong of the Strickland test, Stubblefield must overcome “a strong presumption that [his] counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonabl[y] professional assistance.” Id. “[A]ny allegation of ineffective assistance must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness.” Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim.

2024Washington v. State, 417 S.W.3d 713, 726 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). “‘Reasonable probability’ is a ‘probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,’ meaning ‘counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result 5 Texas adopted the Strickland test in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim.

2024Washington v. State, 417 S.W.3d 713, 726 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). “‘Reasonable probability’ is a ‘probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,’ meaning ‘counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result 5 Texas adopted the Strickland test in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim.

2026West v. State, 474 S.W.3d 785, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“As with the guilt[–]innocence phase of trial, the standard [of ineffective assistance of counsel in the punishment phase] is the two-pronged Strickland test.” (citing Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim.

2026West v. State, 474 S.W.3d 785, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“As with the guilt[–]innocence phase of trial, the standard [of ineffective assistance of counsel in the punishment phase] is the two-pronged Strickland test.” (citing Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim.

2026A failure to make a showing under either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim for ineffective assistance. 466 U.S. at 697 ; Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. Crim.

2026A failure to make a showing under either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim for ineffective assistance. 466 U.S. at 697 ; Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. Crim.

2026To constitute deficient performance, “the challenged conduct [must be] so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011) (“An ineffective-assistance claim can function as a way to escape rules of waiver and forfeiture and raise issues not presented at trial, and so the Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care, lest ‘intrusive post-trial inquiry’ threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve.”). (1) Motion for new trial O

2026To constitute deficient performance, “the challenged conduct [must be] so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011) (“An ineffective-assistance claim can function as a way to escape rules of waiver and forfeiture and raise issues not presented at trial, and so the Strickland standard must be applied with scrupulous care, lest ‘intrusive post-trial inquiry’ threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve.”). (1) Motion for new trial O

2024Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two-step analysis articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and “an appellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court’s need to consider the other prong.” Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2024Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two-step analysis articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and “an appellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court’s need to consider the other prong.” Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2021The record on direct appeal will generally “not be sufficient to show that counsel’s representation was so deficient as to meet the first part of the Strickland standard” as “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record.” Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim.

2021The record on direct appeal will generally “not be sufficient to show that counsel’s representation was so deficient as to meet the first part of the Strickland standard” as “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record.” Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim.

2025“Under the well-established Strickland test, proving ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing that (1) counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which ‘requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.’” In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 111 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 545 ).

2025“Under the well-established Strickland test, proving ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing that (1) counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which ‘requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.’” In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105, 111 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 545 ).

2023“The Strickland test is judged by the ‘totality of the representation,’ not by counsel’s isolated acts or omissions, and the test is applied from the viewpoint of an attorney at the time he acted, not through 20/20 hindsight.” Id. 21 To establish prejudice under the second Strickland prong, a defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. Crim.

2023“The Strickland test is judged by the ‘totality of the representation,’ not by counsel’s isolated acts or omissions, and the test is applied from the viewpoint of an attorney at the time he acted, not through 20/20 hindsight.” Id. 21 To establish prejudice under the second Strickland prong, a defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. Crim.

2022See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985) (holding that the two-part Strickland test applies to guilty pleas); Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856, 857-58 (Tex. Crim.

2022See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985) (holding that the two-part Strickland test applies to guilty pleas); Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856, 857-58 (Tex. Crim.

2019“The lack of a clear record usually will prevent the appellant from meeting the first part of the Strickland test, as the reasonableness of counsel’s choices and motivations during trial can be proven deficient only through facts that do not normally appear in the appellate record.” Mata, 226 S.W.3d at 430 .

2019“The lack of a clear record usually will prevent the appellant from meeting the first part of the Strickland test, as the reasonableness of counsel’s choices and motivations during trial can be proven deficient only through facts that do not normally appear in the appellate record.” Mata, 226 S.W.3d at 430 .

2026To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, Aleman must establish “a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim.

2026To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, Aleman must establish “a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim.

2024Under the first prong of the Strickland test, an appellant must show that counsel’s performance was “deficient.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S. Ct. at 2064 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim.

2024Under the first prong of the Strickland test, an appellant must show that counsel’s performance was “deficient.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S. Ct. at 2064 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim.

2004Whether the Strickland test has been met is to be judged by the “totality of the representation” rather than by isolated acts or omissions of trial counsel, and the test is applied at the time of the trial, not through hindsight. 23 Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. Crim.

2004Whether the Strickland test has been met is to be judged by the “totality of the representation” rather than by isolated acts or omissions of trial counsel, and the test is applied at the time of the trial, not through hindsight. 23 Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. Crim.

2015Brown Cannot Meet the First Strickland Prong As for the first Strickland prong, “[w]e indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance and that it was motivated by sound trial strategy.” Id. (citing Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)), “A Strickland claim must be ‘firmly founded in the. record,’ and ‘the record must affirmatively demonstrate’ the meritorious nature of the claim.” Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 ); see Lopez v. State, 343 S.

2015Brown Cannot Meet the First Strickland Prong As for the first Strickland prong, “[w]e indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable, professional assistance and that it was motivated by sound trial strategy.” Id. (citing Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)), “A Strickland claim must be ‘firmly founded in the. record,’ and ‘the record must affirmatively demonstrate’ the meritorious nature of the claim.” Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 ); see Lopez v. State, 343 S.

2026See Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d at 730 n.14 (“Applicant does not set forth any legal or factual arguments, either in his writ or in his brief to this Court, how applicant was prejudiced by the alleged failure[.] Accordingly, we would be authorized to deny relief on this failure alone.”); Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 570 (“Here, appellant has made no effort to prove the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.

2026See Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d at 730 n.14 (“Applicant does not set forth any legal or factual arguments, either in his writ or in his brief to this Court, how applicant was prejudiced by the alleged failure[.] Accordingly, we would be authorized to deny relief on this failure alone.”); Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 570 (“Here, appellant has made no effort to prove the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.

2022“A party claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test to succeed.” Id. (citing In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 545 ); see In re K.M.H., 181 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.), (finding that the second Strickland prong is required for ineffective assistance claims based on conflict of interest in parental-rights termination cases)).3 “Allegations of ineffectiveness ‘must “be firmly founded in the record.”’” Lampkin v. State, 470 S.W.3d 876, 897 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (quoting Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex.

2022“A party claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test to succeed.” Id. (citing In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 545 ); see In re K.M.H., 181 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.), (finding that the second Strickland prong is required for ineffective assistance claims based on conflict of interest in parental-rights termination cases)).3 “Allegations of ineffectiveness ‘must “be firmly founded in the record.”’” Lampkin v. State, 470 S.W.3d 876, 897 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d) (quoting Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex.

2023Jackson, 973 S.W.2d at 956 . “[A]ppellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court’s need to consider the other prong.” Williams, 301 S.W.3d at 687 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2023Jackson, 973 S.W.2d at 956 . “[A]ppellant’s failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court’s need to consider the other prong.” Williams, 301 S.W.3d at 687 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2026“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal.” Id. (citing Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 , 730 n.14 (Tex. Crim.

2026“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal.” Id. (citing Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 , 730 n.14 (Tex. Crim.

2015In Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that they would “follow in full the Strickland standards in determining effective assistance and prejudice resulting therefrom.” The Court in Bridge v. State, 726 S.W.2d 558, 571 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) explained that the Strickland standard has not been interpreted to mean that an accused is entitled to “errorless or perfect counsel” and that the court must look to the “totality of the representation” applied at the “time of trial, and not through hindsight.” An appellant is “not entitled to a tri

2015In Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that they would “follow in full the Strickland standards in determining effective assistance and prejudice resulting therefrom.” The Court in Bridge v. State, 726 S.W.2d 558, 571 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) explained that the Strickland standard has not been interpreted to mean that an accused is entitled to “errorless or perfect counsel” and that the court must look to the “totality of the representation” applied at the “time of trial, and not through hindsight.” An appellant is “not entitled to a tri

2025The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)).

2025The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)).

2013In order to defeat Strickland’s presumption of reasonable professional assistance, “any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness.” Id. at 814 (citing McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim.

2012In order to defeat Strickland’s presumption of reasonable professional assistance, “any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness.” Id. at 814 (quoting McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 500 (Tex. Crim.

2008Texas adopted the Strickland test in Wilkerson v. State , 726 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim.

2008Texas adopted the Strickland test in Wilkerson v. State , 726 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim.

2025The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)).

2025The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)).

2020The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)). 4 When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on direct appeal, the record “is in almost all cases inadequate to show that counsel’s conduct fell below an objectively reasonable standard of performance.” Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim.

2020The Strickland test “of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 382 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)). 4 When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on direct appeal, the record “is in almost all cases inadequate to show that counsel’s conduct fell below an objectively reasonable standard of performance.” Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim.

2026“The Strickland test is judged by the ‘totality of the 3 We note that crime scene investigator Carin Crain later testified at trial that she took the photos of the house during the investigation. - 10 - 04-24-00796-CR representation,’ not by counsel’s isolated acts or omissions, and the test is applied from the viewpoint of an attorney at the time he acted, not through 20/20 hindsight.” Id.

2026“The Strickland test is judged by the ‘totality of the 3 We note that crime scene investigator Carin Crain later testified at trial that she took the photos of the house during the investigation. - 10 - 04-24-00796-CR representation,’ not by counsel’s isolated acts or omissions, and the test is applied from the viewpoint of an attorney at the time he acted, not through 20/20 hindsight.” Id.

2024Because “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record,” the record will generally “not be sufficient to show that counsel’s representation was so deficient as to meet the first part of the Strickland standard.” Id. at 341.

2024Because “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record,” the record will generally “not be sufficient to show that counsel’s representation was so deficient as to meet the first part of the Strickland standard.” Id. at 341.