Daniel Wayne Tovar v. State, 01-15-00369-CR

Daniel Wayne Tovar pleaded guilty (Feb. 19, 2013) to a third‑degree family‑violence assault and received three years deferred adjudication. The State later filed a Motion to Proceed with Adjudication (Nov. 7, 2014).
Tovar pled true to the alleged probation violations and elected a bench sentencing hearing (Feb. 12, 2015). The hearing occurred March 13, 2015; the court imposed an 8‑year TDC sentence on the assault count (and 24 months on a separate burglary count).
A pre‑sentencing investigation (PSI) prepared by probation officer Lekethia Sims was admitted; neither side called Sims to testify. The State also elicited reputation testimony from Rockdale police officers.
Defense counsel: did not cross‑examine the police witnesses, did not call Sims or any substance‑abuse/mental‑health expert, and did not otherwise independently investigate or present mitigating expert testimony. Defense counsel did elicit from Tovar that he had long‑standing drug and alcohol problems and limited literacy/learning capacities.
The judge commented that he had hoped Sims would testify and relied on the PSI to conclude Tovar previously attended and left treatment voluntarily; the court nevertheless acknowledged Tovar’s substance‑abuse problems.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing hearing	Tovar argues counsel was deficient for failing to call the PSI author, failing to obtain/offer a court‑appointed substance‑abuse or mental‑health expert, failing to investigate independently of the PSI, and failing to cross‑examine reputation witnesses; these failures prejudiced sentencing.	State relied on the PSI and police testimony as support for a prison sentence and emphasized Tovar’s criminal history and PSI recommendations.	Appellant asks the court to reverse the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing; this brief presents the claim on direct appeal (no appellate decision included in the brief).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel ineffective for failing to investigate mitigation beyond PSI and public records)
Ex parte Felton, 815 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (review totality of circumstances in assessing counsel reasonableness)
Haynes v. State, 790 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (defendant bears burden to prove ineffective assistance by preponderance)
Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised on direct appeal despite preservation rules)
In the Matter of R.D.B., 20 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2000) (counsel ineffective for failing to call or obtain mental‑health expert to contest state’s report)
Woods v. State, 59 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2001) (counsel has duty to seek psychiatric evaluation when mental‑health history is known)