Irvin Notias v. State, 01-15-00636-CR

Appellant Irvin Notias was indicted for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, enhanced by a prior aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction.
During the guilt-innocence phase Notias voluntarily absented himself; trial proceeded in absentia.
The jury convicted Notias and found the enhancement true, and he was sentenced to 40 years in the Institutional Division.
Notias filed a timely appellate brief challenging the absence instruction and trial-counsel effectiveness regarding a venire member.
The appellate court denied relief on both points, affirming the conviction and sentence.
The court noted proximity to flight evidence and the sufficiency of the record to address the issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing not to draw guilt from absence	Notias argues absence supports guilt; jury should be instructed otherwise	State contends no binding authority requires such an instruction; record shows flight evidence	No reversible error; court rules absence may support inference of guilt and instruction unnecessary
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging an impartial venire member	Notias claims counsel failed to strike a juror expressing partiality	State argues record is silent on trial-strategy reasons; no demonstration of deficiency	Second point overruled; record insufficient to show ineffective assistance under Strickland

Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (flight evidence admissible as inference of guilt in bail-jumping context)
Lee v. State, 176 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (aff’d, 206 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006))
Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (record silent on counsel’s reasoning; presumes reasonable professional judgment)
Rodriguez v. State, 2002 WL 1022589 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 22, 2002) (trial court did not err in absence context; not designated for publication)
Vasquez v. State, 680 S.W.2d 626 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1984) (absence may require failure-to-testify instruction; cited but distinguished)
Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (clarified Vasquez holding regarding absence instruction scope)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance framework)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (heightened requirement to show record supports claims)
Aldaba v. State, 382 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (record-based evaluation of counsel performance)