Eric John Pedroza v. the State of Texas, 03-19-00483-CR

Pedroza was indicted on three counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child (alleged June 12, 2016). Trial to the bench occurred June 7, 2019.
Pedroza signed a Waiver and Stipulation of Evidence as to Count Four (indecency by contact), admitting he touched the victim’s breast and agreeing to $140 restitution; the court confirmed he understood it and accepted a guilty plea to Count Four.
The State’s only witness was the victim, who gave limited testimony and declined to describe details in front of Pedroza; defense called only Pedroza’s wife who testified about his medical history and that Pedroza admitted he had “licked” the victim.
After both sides rested, the trial court asked if either party wished to admit the Waiver and Stipulation; the State offered it, defense did not object, and the court admitted it as State’s Exhibit 1.
The court acquitted Pedroza on Counts One–Three, convicted him on Count Four (indecency with a child by contact, second-degree felony), and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement. Pedroza appealed.

Issue	Pedroza's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Due process / judicial bias from court soliciting and admitting Waiver & Stipulation after State rested	Admission after State rested and court’s solicitation showed judge bias and structural error depriving fair trial	Error unpreserved (no objection); judge presumed impartial; admission and prior colloquy did not show bias or structural error	Overruled — claim waived for failure to object and not structural; no bias shown
Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to admission of Waiver & Stipulation and failure to move to reopen	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting and thereby allowing late admission without motion to reopen	Counsel’s conduct was reasonable (client had signed and pleaded guilty; no request to object; tactical reasons possible); no prejudice shown	Overruled — no deficient performance shown and, even assuming deficiency, no prejudice to undermine confidence in outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial remarks amount to bias only if from extrajudicial source or show high degree of favoritism/antagonism)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (examples of structural errors depriving fundamental fairness)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
Lake v. State, 532 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (structural-error treatment follows Supreme Court labels)
Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (standard for reviewing judicial bias claims)
Peek v. State, 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (reopening evidence: judge should reopen if evidence would materially change the case)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to counsel; records rarely alone show ineffectiveness)