Frank Lara v. State, 04-14-00553-CR

Background

Frank Lara was indicted for multiple offenses; the State proceeded on two counts of trafficking a child and two counts of compelling prostitution of a child; jury convicted on all four counts.
Lara elected judge-only punishment; trial court sentenced him to four life terms (Count I consecutive to II–IV).
Lara appealed raising a single issue: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (several alleged instances).
Key alleged failures: eliciting testimony that a witness (Belen Mendoza) was Lara’s parole officer (opening extraneous-offense evidence); failing to timely object to admission of electronic data/extraneous offenses as adoptive admissions; permitting leading questions to witness M.P.; requesting admission of whole cellphone data report; failing to object to an agent’s speculative interpretation of texts.
Trial record contained no motion for new trial or evidentiary hearing explaining counsel’s strategy; trial counsel did attempt some objections/arguments but did not have case law at bench conference before certain evidence was admitted.
Court affirmed, concluding Lara did not prove deficient performance or waived several complaints for inadequate briefing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lara received ineffective assistance of counsel overall	Counsel made multiple errors that, singly or cumulatively, fell below professional standards and prejudiced the defense	Counsel’s acts plausibly reflected trial strategy; record does not show deficient performance or prejudice	Denied — Lara failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Thompson
Mendoza cross-examination revealing parole status and supervision level	Eliciting that Mendoza was his parole officer opened door to extraneous-offense evidence and harmed defense	Counsel reasonably may have elicited facts to counter media/public narrative and to show no internet access and that parole was not for a sex offense; supports defensive timeline	Denied — trial strategy plausible; record insufficient to overcome presumption of reasonable assistance
Failure to timely object to admission of cellphone data/extraneous offenses as adoptive admissions	Counsel knew evidence was inadmissible as adoptive admissions but did not timely object, allowing harmful material before briefing	To prevail counsel must show a timely objection would have been sustained (i.e., trial court error); appellant did not show the court would have erred	Denied — appellant did not establish that a timely objection would have succeeded; no deficient performance shown
Remaining alleged errors (leading M.P., admitting full data report, agent speculation) and cumulative error	Counsel failed to object or made strategic mistakes on these points causing prejudice	Appellant’s brief lacks factual analysis and relevant authority; claims are inadequately briefed and thus waived; record does not show deficient performance	Denied / Waived — insufficient briefing under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); no reviewable showing of deficiency or prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (prejudice/deficient-performance standards; direct-appeal limitations)
Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (presumption of reasonable strategy on direct appeal)
Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (deference to trial strategy)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (limits on finding deficient performance)
Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (need to show trial court error to prove failure-to-object prejudice)
Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (appellate briefing requirements and preservation)