Charles Johnathan Chavez v. State, 01-16-00143-CR

Chavez was charged with misdemeanor assault after a neighbor saw him pull his girlfriend, Brenda Vasquez, by the hair into their apartment; Vasquez later told the responding officer she fell down stairs and at trial denied being pulled by her hair.
Jury found Chavez guilty; trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment, suspended for two years, and placed him on community supervision.
Trial court initially found Chavez indigent and appointed counsel; after conviction it ordered Chavez to pay $645 in attorney’s fees but later again found him indigent at an indigency hearing.
Chavez filed a pro se notice of appeal asserting ineffective assistance (e.g., counsel prevented him from testifying) and argued on appeal that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to (1) a prosecutor’s voir dire comment and (2) an officer’s credibility testimony.
Chavez also argued the court erred in assessing attorney’s fees without finding a material change in financial circumstances and that the court erred by not treating his pro se filing as a motion for new trial and holding a hearing.

Issue	Chavez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s voir dire comment that his office prosecutes cases with recanting complainants	Comment improperly indoctrinated jurors and implied victim was a liar	No showing counsel’s failure to object was deficient trial strategy	Overruled — record silent on counsel’s reasons; presumption of reasonable strategy applies
2. Counsel ineffective for failing to object to officer testifying about victim’s credibility	Officer improperly vouched for State by opining Vasquez was not credible	Same as above (no evidence of deficient performance)	Overruled — no record showing deficient performance
3. Trial court assessed attorney’s fees against indigent defendant without finding material change in finances	Court improperly ordered repayment absent finding of material change	State conceded error	Sustained — judgment modified to strike attorney’s fees
4. Trial court erred by failing to hold hearing on Chavez’s pro se notice of appeal construed as motion for new trial	Pro se filing should have been treated as motion for new trial and heard	Chavez did not properly present motion under Rule 21.6; no evidence trial court had actual notice	Overruled — Chavez failed to show timely presentment or actual notice to the trial court

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explains Strickland application in Texas)
Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption that counsel’s performance falls within reasonable professional assistance)
Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (record must affirmatively show ineffectiveness)
Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court may order repayment of appointed counsel costs if defendant is able to pay)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App.) (may not order re‑payment absent finding of material change in finances)
Bearnth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (defendant must timely present motion for new trial to trigger hearing)
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presentment requires actual notice to the trial court)