Ex Parte William George Brown, 13-20-00158-CR

Brown was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after allegedly pointing a firearm at brothers David and Danny Flores and threatening them.
Corina Flores testified Brown approached her in her vehicle holding a gun; David and Danny testified Brown later pointed a gun at them and threatened to kill them. Brown denied threatening either brother.
At the charging conference defense counsel requested a self-defense instruction; the trial court denied it because Brown denied committing the charged offense.
A jury convicted Brown; punishment was two years (concurrent) but suspended with 10 years community supervision.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed, holding Brown was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he denied culpability. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused review.
Brown filed an article 11.072 habeas alleging ineffective assistance for failing to request a §9.04 (threats as justifiable force) instruction; the trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings (including counsel’s affidavit that the record did not support a §9.04 request) and denied relief; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a §9.04 threats-as-justifiable-force instruction	Brown: counsel should have requested §9.04 self-defense instruction (threats) and its omission was deficient	State/Trial court: counsel either did request a general self-defense charge; record did not support a §9.04 instruction; appellate decision already held Brown not entitled	Court: counsel not shown to be deficient; Brown not entitled to instruction; habeas denied

Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (a general request for a self-defense charge can invoke applicable self-defense provisions including §9.04)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (burden of proof on habeas applicant)
Ex parte Reynoso, 257 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (claims raised and rejected on direct appeal are not cognizable on habeas)
Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applicant must prove claim by preponderance; deference to trial court findings)
Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial-court factual findings receive strong deference on habeas)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review of habeas denial: view facts favorably to trial court and affirm absent abuse of discretion)
Perez v. State, 310 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applicant must prove both Strickland prongs by preponderance)