time of the alleged error in Texas

2019App. 1999). 3 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 . 4 meritorious nature of the claim.4 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.5 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient- performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case.6 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error.7 Review of counsel’s representation is hig

2018App. 2015) (citations omitted). 12 and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.29 An ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and “the record must affirmatively demonstrate” the meritorious nature of the claim.30 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.31 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient-performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 32 The issue is whet

2018App. 2015) (citations omitted). 12 and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.29 An ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and “the record must affirmatively demonstrate” the meritorious nature of the claim.30 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.31 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient-performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 32 The issue is whet

2018App. 2015) (citations omitted). 12 and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.29 An ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and “the record must affirmatively demonstrate” the meritorious nature of the claim.30 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.31 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient-performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 32 The issue is whet

2019App. 1999). 3 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 . 4 meritorious nature of the claim.4 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.5 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient- performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case.6 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error.7 Review of counsel’s representation is hig

2018App. 2012); Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813–14. 5 Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 . 3 whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error. 6 Review of counsel’s representation is highly deferential, and the reviewing court indulges a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was not deficient.7 It is not appropriate for an appellate court to simply infer ineffective assistance based upon unclear portions of the record or when counsel’s reasons for failing to do something do not appear in the record. 8 Trial counsel “sho

2011Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 , 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2586 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); see Butler v. State, 716 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).

2011Kimmelman v. Morrison , 477 U.S. 365, 381 , 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2586 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); see Butler v. State , 716 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986).

2012See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (noting that the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is to be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances, and that the standard of review is highly deferential).

2012See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (noting that the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is to be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances, and that the standard of review is highly deferential).

2018App. 2015) (citations omitted). 12 and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.29 An ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and “the record must affirmatively demonstrate” the meritorious nature of the claim.30 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.31 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient-performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 32 The issue is whet

2015App. 2013); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 770 (Tex. Crim.

2018However, “when no reasonable trial strategy could justify the trial counsel’s conduct, counsel’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of law, regardless of whether the record 6 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688–89, 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; Nava, 415 S.W.3d at 307 . 7 Nava, 415 S.W.3d at 307–08. 8 Menefield, 363 S.W.3d at 593 ; Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 432 (Tex. Crim.

2009App. 1999). 3 … Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 . 3 circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error.4 Review of counsel’s representation is highly deferential, and the reviewing court indulges a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representation.5 A reviewing court will rarely be in a position on direct appeal to fairly evaluate the merits of an ineffective assistance claim.6 “In the majority of cases, the record on direct appeal is undeveloped and cannot adequately reflect the motives behind trial counsel’s actions.” 7 To

2005To constitute a waiver, the right or privilege alleged to have been waived must have been in existence at the time of the alleged waiver.” Pennzoil v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 421 S.W.2d 416, 423 (Tex.Civ.

2005To constitute a waiver, the right or privilege alleged to have been waived must have been in existence at the time of the alleged waiver.” Pennzoil v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. , 421 S.W.2d 416, 423 (Tex. Civ.

2011App. 1999). 3 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the first prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 3 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error. 4 Review of counsel’s representation is highly deferential, and the reviewing court indulges a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representation.5 A reviewing court will rarely be in a position on direct appeal to fairly evalu

2011App. 1999). 3 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the first prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 3 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professional norms at the time of the alleged error. 4 Review of counsel’s representation is highly deferential, and the reviewing court indulges a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable representation.5 A reviewing court will rarely be in a position on direct appeal to fairly evalu

2012To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel’s representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiency, the result of the trial would have been different. 12 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the first prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case.13 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professio

2012To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel’s representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiency, the result of the trial would have 8 been different.2 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the first prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case.3 The issue is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing professio

1995See Braugh v. Phillips, 557 S.W.2d 155, 158 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Sun Exploration & Prod.

1995See Braugh v. Phillips, 557 S.W.2d 155, 158 (Tex. Civ.

1999Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514-16 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994).

1999Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514-16 , 114 S.Ct. 1019 , 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994).

2026A defendant is not entitled to “errorless or perfect counsel whose competency of representation is to be judged by hindsight.” Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475, 483 (Tex. Crim.

2025Ex Parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995); Tex. Fam.

2021See Harvey v. State, 78 S.W.3d 368, 372-73 (Tex. Crim.

2019App. 2012) 4 See id. at 592 ; Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 . 5 Menefield, 363 S.W.3d at 593 (quoting Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex. 6 Crim.

2018App. 2015) (citations omitted). 12 and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.29 An ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim must be “firmly founded in the record,” and “the record must affirmatively demonstrate” the meritorious nature of the claim.30 Direct appeal is usually an inadequate vehicle for raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record is generally undeveloped.31 In evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the deficient-performance prong, we look to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. 32 The issue is whet

2015Realty Growth Investors v. Council of Unit Owners, 453 A.2d 450, 456 (Del. 1982). “[E]stoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded ... from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed, ... as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct, and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse....” Vila v. BVWebTies LLC, 2010 WL 3866098 *10 n.73 (Del.

2014See Gardner v. Herring, 21 S.W.3d 767, 775 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (“Indeed, it would be quite specious to suggest that through silence one can waive a complaint regarding conduct about which he knew nothing or about which he was denied the opportunity to object. . . .

2012A parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management” of his child is a constitutional interest “far more precious than any property right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 758–59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397 (1982) (internal citation omitted).

2012A parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management” of his child is a constitutional interest “far more precious than any property right.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 758–59, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397 (1982) (internal citation omitted).