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

Defendant Christopher Martinez was convicted of criminal mischief for slashing all four tires of Ruben Barrera’s vehicle; loss exceeded $1,500 (State Jail Felony).
At trial a bouncer, Gabriel Leal, testified he observed Martinez making a back-and-forth swinging motion toward the tires and said he saw Martinez "stabbing tires," though Leal admitted Martinez’s back was to him and he did not directly see the tires being cut.
Victim Barrera testified the tires were later found slashed, photographs showed flat tires, and he spent over $3,000 to replace them.
Police stopped Martinez’s vehicle later; officers removed him, conducted a pat-down, found a knife, questioned him, and recorded a DVD of his behavior before Miranda warnings were given.
On appeal Martinez argued: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove he actually cut the tires; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress pre‑Miranda statements/DVD. The State urges affirmance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for criminal mischief	Leal’s testimony was unreliable because he could not directly see Martinez cut the tires.	Circumstantial and testimonial evidence (Leal’s observation, timing/location, damaged tires, repair cost) permits reasonable inference Martinez did it.	Affirmed: combined evidence, viewed favorably to verdict, supports guilt.
Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress	Trial counsel was deficient for not seeking suppression of statements/DVD made before Miranda warnings.	Failure to move was not deficient: statements likely non-custodial; suppression motion likely would fail; strategic choice and lack of prejudice.	Affirmed: appellant failed to show deficient performance or resulting prejudice.
Miranda/custodial interrogation question	Martinez asserts his pre-arrest questioning and DVD were custodial so Miranda should have applied.	Traffic stop, removal from vehicle, pat-down, and brief placement in patrol car did not necessarily create custody; routine investigatory detention.	Held non-custodial as a matter of law on the record; Miranda not required under these circumstances.
Prejudice from admitted statements/DVD	Statements (presence at club; ownership of knife) undermined defense.	Admissions were cumulative/irrelevant: presence at club was undisputed and knife ownership immaterial; DVD not in record for appellate review.	No prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails.

Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency; evaluate reasonable inferences from cumulative evidence)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defendant must show that a suppression motion would have succeeded to prevail on Strickland claim for failure to file one)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (traffic stops generally noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1995) (custody inquiry is objective — whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
State v. Ortiz, 382 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of custodial‑questioning/Miranda principles in Texas)