Garcia, Mark Anthony, PD-0654-15

Garcia was convicted of one count of murder and sentenced to 20 years’ confinement under the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
On appeal, Garcia asserted ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel and challenged court costs/attorney’s fees assessed against him.
The Fourth Court of Appeals denied relief but modified the judgment to delete attorney’s fees; Garcia challenged on discretionary review.
The issue centered on whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland, and whether indigence statutes permitted charging fees.
Record shows Garcia was indigent at trial and on appeal, yet the trial court later imposed court costs/fees; the court ultimately deleted the attorney’s fee assessment.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment as modified, rejecting Garcia’s ineffective assistance claim and deleting the attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Garcia contends trial counsel opened door to extraneous cocaine evidence.	State contends a single misstep does not prove deficiency.	Garcia failed to show deficient performance under Strickland.
Whether trial counsel’s questioning opened the door to extraneous acts	Defense question opened door to cocaine evidence.	State argued door was opened; defense objections insufficient.	Record supports trial court's door-opening ruling; still insufficient to prove ineffective assistance.
Attorney’s fees/indigent status	Indigent status required no fees; material change not shown.	Record showed some financial resources; fees permissible.	Court costs/attorney’s fees were improper; judgment modified to delete attorney’s-fees assessment.
Actual innocence/Schlup standard	Garcia sought relief based on new evidence of innocence.	State argued evidence insufficient to undermine guilt.	Court did not reach a substantive actual-innocence ruling due to lack of merit in the claim.
Recall of mandate relief	Garcia sought recall to permit panel rehearing.	State opposed recalling mandate.	Relief denied; opinion focuses on merits of substantive claims.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (right to counsel on appeal in criminal cases)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (applies Strickland on direct appeal; heavy burden on record)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigence and ability to pay court costs/fees)
Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits on assessing costs when indigent)
Dieken v. State, 432 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (material-change and ability-to-pay analysis for costs/fees)
McFatridge v. State, 309 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (payment of costs/fees under indigence framework)
Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (principles for ineffective-assistance analysis on direct appeal)