Eugene v. State, 528 S.W.3d 245

In 2004 appellant Allan Eugene shot and killed Richard Sepulveda in a grocery‑store parking lot; physical evidence (bullet, gun) and DNA linked appellant to the scene; appellant later admitted shooting the complainant.
Appellant was charged with murder, tried, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant raised two issues on direct appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for allegedly failing to investigate and pursue a pre‑indictment‑delay motion to quash, and (2) an as‑applied constitutional challenge to Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.011(a)(3) (a $5 fee for summoning witnesses) as applied to an indigent defendant.
The record did not include a motion for new trial or testimony from trial counsel explaining trial strategy or investigative steps taken.
The court considered whether the appellate record was sufficient to resolve the Strickland claim and whether appellant met his burden to show the witness‑fee statute denied him compulsory process or confrontation rights.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not investigating/preparing a motion to quash based on 10‑year pre‑indictment delay	Counsel failed to investigate eyewitnesses and therefore could not reasonably decline to pursue a motion to quash; this deprived appellant of effective assistance	Record is undeveloped; absence of entries in counsel’s fee request does not prove counsel failed to investigate; reasonable strategy may explain omission	Affirmed: record insufficient to overcome presumption of reasonable strategy; claim not proven on direct appeal
As‑applied challenge to art. 102.011(a)(3) (witness‑summons fee) by an indigent defendant	A $5 fee for summoning witnesses, when assessed against an indigent convict, infringes compulsory‑process and confrontation rights because of constructive notice of post‑conviction costs	Constructive notice of post‑conviction assessment did not prevent appellant from compelling or confronting witnesses at trial; appellant failed to identify specific witnesses or show he acted differently because of the fee	Affirmed: appellant failed to show the statute, as applied to him, deprived him of constitutional rights

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Ex parte Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applies Strickland standard in Texas)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App.) (direct appeal is often inadequate for undeveloped ineffective‑assistance claims)
State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limitations of as‑applied challenges; claimant must show actual effect)
London v. State, 526 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (constructive notice of postconviction witness fees did not show deprivation of compulsory process)
Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App.) (constitutional challenges to statutes reviewed de novo)