Danny Oltivero v. State, 07-14-00318-CR

Appellant Danny Oltivero was indicted on three counts: Count 1 aggravated sexual assault of a child (trial to the bench), Counts 2–3 indecency with a child (guilty pleas without agreement).
Conduct occurred during a single overnight visit at appellant’s home; allegations included touching, penetration by finger, and a threat to kill the victim if she told.
Appellant pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3, signing a Waiver of Rights that expressly included waiving the right against double jeopardy; the court accepted those pleas.
Count 1 was tried to the court, which found appellant guilty and imposed concurrent sentences: 40 years (Count 1), 20 years (Count 2), 20 years (Count 3).
On appeal appellant raised: (1) double jeopardy claim as to Count 2 based on the Count 1 conviction, and (2) two ineffective-assistance claims for trial counsel’s failure to object to portions of the counselor’s testimony (alleged impermissible victim-impact and opinion-that-victim-is-truthful testimony).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether conviction on Count 2 is barred by double jeopardy after Count 1 conviction	Double jeopardy prohibits multiple convictions/punishments arising from the same conduct	Appellant affirmatively waived double jeopardy in the written plea and on the record when pleading guilty to Counts 2 and 3	Overruled — claim was waived by plea; not preserved for appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to counselor’s testimony about victim’s shame/anxiety (alleged improper victim-impact evidence)	Counsel’s failure to object deprived appellant of effective assistance	State: testimony was treatment/diagnosis evidence admissible under expert and medical‑treatment hearsay exception; record gives no reason for counsel’s choices	Overruled — no affirmative record of deficient performance; possible strategy presumed
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to counselor’s testimony that the victim appreciated importance of truthfulness and followed it (alleged opinion on veracity)	Such testimony improperly vouched for the complainant’s credibility; counsel’s failure to object was ineffective	State: testimony admissible as part of treatment and statements for medical diagnosis/treatment	Overruled — record does not affirmatively show deficient performance; assume strategic choice

Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (framework for preservation: three categories of rights)
Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (double jeopardy objections must be preserved; procedural default analysis)
Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (narrow exception to preservation rule)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (burden to show ineffectiveness and that record must affirmatively demonstrate deficiency)
Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (effective assistance guarantees reasonably effective, not perfect, counsel)
Ingham v. State, 679 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (quality of representation not judged with hindsight)
McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (isolated errors do not establish ineffectiveness)
Black v. State, 634 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1982) (expert witness may not opine that a witness is telling the truth)