reasons rule in Texas

2021Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 772 . “[A] reviewing court on direct appeal will rarely be able to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective-assistance claim because the record on direct appeal is usually undeveloped and inadequately reflective of the reasons for defense counsel’s actions at trial.” Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim.

2021Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 772 . “[A] reviewing court on direct appeal will rarely be able to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective-assistance claim because the record on direct appeal is usually undeveloped and inadequately reflective of the reasons for defense counsel’s actions at trial.” Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim.

2018Id. at 49 .

2017Id. at 49 .

2003Godbey , 924 S.W.2d at 132 .

2003Godbey, 924 S.W.2d at 132 .

1986The rationale behind the requirement was twofold: (1) to protect the city's water mains from contamination, and (2) to preserve the system's water pressure and supply. 181 S.W.2d at 1020 .

1986The rationale behind the requirement was twofold: 111)to protect the city's water mains from contamination. and (2) to preserve the system’s water pressure and supply. 181 S.W.2d at 1020 .

1979The reasons for this rule have been stated in Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App.1972): “Limitations on the admissibility of evidence of an accused’s prior criminal conduct are imposed, not because such evidence is without legal relevance to the general issue of whether the accused committed the act charged, but because such evidence is inherently prejudicial, tends to confuse the issues in the case, and forces the accused to defend himself against charges which he had not been notified would be brought against him.” We cannot accept the State’s contention that evidence of the extran

1979The reasons for this rule have been stated in Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972): "Limitations on the admissibility of evidence of an accused's prior criminal conduct are imposed, not because such evidence is without legal relevance to the general issue of whether the accused committed the act charged, but because such evidence is inherently prejudicial, tends to confuse the issues in the case, and forces the accused to defend himself against charges which he had not been notified would be brought against him." We cannot accept the State's contention that evidence of the extra

1962Bentinck v. Franklin, 38 Tex. 458 ; Stewart v. [Houston & T.

1962Bentinck v. Franklin, 38 Tex. 458 ; Stewart v. [Houston & T.

1938This Court, as early as 1892, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Haas, 85 Texas 401 , 20 S. W. 586 , speaking through Chief Justice Stayton, in discussing rules relating to applications for writs of error, held that because no motion for rehearing, presenting the questions on which error was asserted, was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, the application for writ of error was dismissed; and, in discussing the reasons for the rule, said: “The application for writ of error in this casé shows that no motion for rehearing was made in the Court of Civil Appeals, and it further shows that the

1938This Court, as early as 1892, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Haas, 85 Texas 401 , 20 S. W. 586 , speaking through Chief Justice Stayton, in discussing rules relating to applications for writs of error, held that because no motion for rehearing, presenting the questions on which error was asserted, was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, the application for writ of error was dismissed; and, in discussing the reasons for the rule, said: “The application for writ of error in this casé shows that no motion for rehearing was made in the Court of Civil Appeals, and it further shows that the

1883Wade, 25 Tex., 510 , do not apply under the changed condition of the law, evidenced by the articles of the Revised Statutes referred to.

1883The reasons for the rule excluding such evidence laid down in Short v. Wade, 25 Tex., 510 , do not apply under the changed condition of the law evidenced by the articles of the Eevised Statutes referred to.

2022The reasons for the rule were made clear by the facts in Norton, in which the State requested a PSI and the appellant confessed to the offense to the supervision officer conducting the interview, which, in turn, the State sought to use at trial. 755 S.W.2d at 524-25 .

2019Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813–14; Busby, 990 S.W.2d at 269 . “[T]he record on direct appeal is usually undeveloped and inadequately reflective of the reasons for defense counsel’s actions at trial.” Mata v. 7 State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim.

2018Because the record is not developed, we will not find defense counsel’s performance deficient unless the challenged conduct was “so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.” Id.

2018Appellant argues that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to ask him any questions "pertinent to establishing a record to argue for protection under the First Amendment as an intimate association." See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees , 468 U.S. 609 , 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 3244 , 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (noting that "choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue *314 intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme").

2018Appellant argues that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to ask him any questions "pertinent to establishing a record to argue for protection under the First Amendment as an intimate association." See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees , 468 U.S. 609 , 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 3244 , 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (noting that "choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue *314 intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme").

2015Strong policies support our practice of adhering to settled See Kaigler, 961 S.W.2d at 275–76 (recognizing that rules of law “unless there exists the strongest reasons for the rule provides harsh results, but emphasizing that chang[e].” Benavides v. Garcia, 290 S.W. 739 , 740–41 (Tex. uniform enforcement “encourage[s] attentiveness to correct Comm'n App.1927, judgm't adopted).

2015See Bekendam, 441 S.W.3d at 300 ; Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177-78 ; Martinez, 91 S.W.3d at 336-37 .

2015Hussami also complains about the lack of evidence on various “vital fact[s],” such as “any documentary evidence showing that the acknowledgment of privacy practices, a necessary document before rendering service, was signed to 11 See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 334 . 12 See Tex. R.