Harold Dewayne Ferguson v. State, 02-16-00451-CR

Harold Dewayne Ferguson faced two causes: evading arrest by vehicle and possession of a controlled substance, each charged with habitual‑offender enhancements raising punishment to life or 25–99 years.
He pleaded guilty to evading arrest and true to enhancement paragraphs; a jury assessed life for that offense after a punishment trial. He then pleaded guilty and true in the possession case and received life by the court.
Ferguson filed a motion for new trial claiming trial counsel failed to call character witnesses; he attached an affidavit stating he had provided a witness list and two family members were present but not called.
The record included two colloquies where defense counsel asked Ferguson whether he wished to present additional witnesses; Ferguson indicated he did not and that he was satisfied with counsel and wanted to rest after testifying.
At punishment, the State introduced pen packets and judgments (exhibits 1–16) detailing prior convictions; later the State admitted exhibit 26, a PowerPoint summary of that criminal history, over a Rule 403 cumulative‑evidence objection.
The court denied a hearing on the motion for new trial and admitted exhibit 26; Ferguson appealed both rulings.

Issue	Ferguson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial court abused discretion by refusing to hold a hearing on motion for new trial	Ferguson argued his affidavit raised matters not determinable from the record because he may have misunderstood colloquy and did not waive calling character witnesses	Record shows two separate on‑the‑record confirmations that Ferguson did not want additional witnesses; motion did not allege ineffective assistance or why relief was warranted	No abuse of discretion; hearing not required because issue was determinable from record and relief not shown
Trial court abused discretion by admitting exhibit 26 as needlessly cumulative under Tex. R. Evid. 403	Ferguson argued exhibit 26 merely duplicated pen packets already in evidence and was cumulative	State argued prior convictions were before the jury throughout (voir dire, indictment read, exhibits 1–16, defendant's testimony) and exhibit 26 accurately summarized testimony	Even if admission was erroneous, error was nonconstitutional and harmless given pervasive presentation of prior convictions; conviction affirmed

Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (motion for new trial hearing required only when motion and affidavits raise matters not determinable from the record and show reasonable grounds for relief)
Winegarner v. State, 235 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility of evidence; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (article 37.07 allows introduction of prior criminal history at punishment)
Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (nonconstitutional evidentiary error is subject to harm analysis under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2)
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (when assessing harmlessness, appellate courts consider the entire record to determine whether an error influenced the jury)