Antonio De La Cruz v. State, 11-15-00281-CR

Appellant Antonio De La Cruz was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child; sentences: life on each count, to run consecutively.
Victim (A.S.), age five at start of abuse, and her mother Molly testified describing repeated sexual abuse; Appellant testified and denied molesting A.S.
Defense counsel pursued a theory that the child fabricated accusations to protect her mother; few defense witnesses were called and Appellant testified.
After conviction, Appellant retained new counsel who filed a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/call witnesses, inadequate voir dire, failure to raise Batson, poor cross-examination, limited mitigation/punishment presentation).
Trial court denied the motion for new trial (overruled by operation of law); Appellant appealed raising two issues: (1) denial of new-trial motion without a hearing was an abuse of discretion, and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Appellant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and failed to allege facts/affidavits establishing entitlement to a new trial or a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial performance)	Counsel failed to investigate/call witnesses, conduct adequate voir dire, raise Batson, cross-examine effectively, and present mitigation/closing at punishment	Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; record does not show the claimed deficiencies or prejudice	Court held Appellant did not meet either Strickland prong; counsel not shown deficient nor outcome likely different
Denial of motion for new trial without hearing	Motion alleged ineffective assistance and the existence of material witnesses who would prove innocence; claimed trial court should have held a hearing	Motion lacked affidavits from proposed witnesses and failed to allege specific, non-cumulative facts outside the record showing both performance and prejudice	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing or new trial because Appellant failed to present affidavits or evidentiary facts establishing reasonable grounds under Strickland

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (review of denial of motion for new trial is abuse-of-discretion standard)
Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance must allege facts satisfying Strickland)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (hearing required only when motion/affidavits raise matters not determinable from the record and show reasonable grounds)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (ineffective-assistance claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (strategic voir dire decisions are entitled to deference)
Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743 (cross-examination reviewed with caution; hindsight critique disfavored)
Batiste v. State, 888 S.W.2d 9 (absence of Batson challenge in record limits appellate review)
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (wide latitude in counsel’s closing argument strategy)