Carlos Omar Casillas AKA Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla v. State, 06-17-00147-CR

In March 2016, Carlos Omar Casillas drove a car from Mexico to New York to sell it, then returned toward Mexico and was arrested in Texas during a money-laundering investigation.
Police seized four cell phones from Casillas; one contained pornographic images involving children, and Casillas pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
On appeal (consolidated with seven related convictions), Casillas raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and challenged assessed court costs and attorney-fee/cost findings.
At punishment Casillas testified he received a private Facebook message with images he believed were of women, did not know they were of children, and downloaded them shortly before arrest; he asserted counsel should have investigated his Facebook to corroborate timing/content.
The trial court assessed a $4 criminal technology fee and $1,150 in attorney fees (later ordered withdrawn from inmate account), finding Casillas had resources despite appointing counsel and an earlier indigency finding.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the technology fee but found insufficient evidence to support assessment of appointed counsel’s fees, deleting the $1,150 assessment and reducing the ordered inmate-account withdrawal accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate Facebook	Casillas: counsel should have obtained Facebook messages to corroborate his timeline and show lack of knowledge	State: record contains no evidence counsel failed to investigate; counsel may have strategic reasons; defendant did not file motion for new trial	No ineffective assistance shown; record does not affirmatively demonstrate deficient performance
Validity of criminal technology fee	Casillas: fee authority limited to municipal/county courts per art. 102.0172	State: art. 102.0169 authorizes $4 fee in district courts	Fee authorized and properly assessed; $4 criminal technology fee upheld
Assessment of appointed counsel's attorney fees	Casillas: trial court lacked factual basis to find present ability to pay; he was indigent when counsel was appointed	State: court relied on testimony and observed facts to infer ability to pay	Reversed as to attorney fees — insufficient evidence of present financial resources; $1,150 fee deleted

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Strickland application on direct appeal)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (trial record must affirmatively show deficiency)
Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (direct-appeal ineffective-assistance limitations)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (need factual basis for ordering reimbursement of appointed counsel)
Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (speculation about future resources cannot support present ability-to-pay determination)
Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (counsel need not be errorless; judged by prevailing norms)