Christopher Martinez v. State, 13-14-00512-CR

Christopher Martinez was indicted for criminal mischief (damage > $1,500) after a bouncer at El Dorado testified he saw a person kneeling and making "swinging motions" at a Hummer and then drive off in a white Ford Mustang; the bouncer identified Martinez about ten–fifteen minutes later.
The bouncer was approximately 100 yards from the Hummer when he observed the swinging motion; no witness saw the condition of the tires before that observation.
Officers stopped the Mustang near a different club, removed Martinez (six officers present), found a knife on him, and questioned him without giving Miranda/article 38.22 warnings; Martinez made inculpatory statements that were admitted at trial.
Martinez was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 15 months in state jail (with a conditional reduction tied to restitution); he appealed.
Appellant’s brief raises two primary grounds: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to prove he damaged the tires, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress statements obtained during custodial interrogation without proper warnings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martinez)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove criminal mischief	The bouncer identified Martinez as one of the persons seen near the Hummer and the jury could infer culpability from the totality of the evidence.	Identification was unreliable (100 yards, only saw a swinging motion), no evidence of pre-existing tire condition, no proof the knife could cause the damage, no motive — evidence insufficient.	Not decided in this filing; appellant requests reversal/acquittal.
Admissibility of post-stop statements / Miranda/article 38.22 warnings	Statements were properly admitted (trial record contains videos/audio and testimony).	Martinez was in custody and subject to interrogation; no warnings were given; counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress, and admission of statements was prejudicial.	Not decided in this filing; appellant requests reversal and new trial alternatively.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial and direct evidence treated equally for sufficiency)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation: words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (factors informing "custody" analysis under Miranda/article 38.22)