Brian Keith Hollek v. State, 13-16-00402-CR

On May 21, 2015, Officer Daniel Crook stopped a pickup for driving the wrong way; he observed a revolver on the front seat next to the driver (appellant Brian Keith Hollek).
Crook removed and began handcuffing Hollek; Hollek resisted, fought, and escaped on foot; front-seat passenger Roy (James) Moore remained.
Hollek was arrested days later when he returned to reclaim dogs from the truck; the State indicted him for assault on a public servant (third-degree felony).
At trial the court admitted dashboard- and backseat-camera recordings; the State published the first ten minutes of the dashcam video to the jury but did not publish the backseat camera footage containing a conversation between Crook and Moore about a possible methamphetamine finding.
The jury found Hollek guilty; the court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Hollek appealed raising two issues: the venire was not sworn before voir dire, and ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the camera recordings.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Venire oath before voir dire	Trial court failed to swear the jury panel before voir dire, violating Art. 35.02.	Record is silent; presumption that jury was properly empaneled and sworn applies.	Affirmed — appellant failed to overcome presumption; silence is not affirmative proof the oath was not administered.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to vehicle-camera recordings	Counsel was deficient for not reviewing full video (missing conversation) and should have objected; prejudice because jury could infer drugs.	Even if deficient, no prejudice because jury never saw the backseat conversation (State only published first ten minutes).	Affirmed — appellant could not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (prejudice lacking).

Duffy v. State, 567 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (oath requirement ensures voir dire statements are under oath; record silence not affirmative showing).
Osteen v. State, 642 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (silent record does not establish that venire was not sworn).
Faison v. State, 59 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001) (presumption that jury was properly empaneled and sworn applies absent affirmative showing).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice).
Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for deficient performance).
Cox v. State, 389 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (prejudice prong and approach to Strickland analysis).
Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (definition of reasonable probability to undermine confidence in outcome).