James Earl Lemons v. State, 426 S.W.3d 267

Lemons was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Darryl Cox identified him as the shooter.
Karen Cox, Darryl’s wife, had an extramarital affair with Lemons and testified he threatened to harm Darryl.
Karen’s testimony included statements about Lemons’ prior threats and other extraneous acts.
Defense trial counsel allegedly failed to object to extraneous-offense evidence and elicited some such testimony.
Lemons challenged counsel's performance under Strickland v. Washington, arguing ineffective assistance.
The appellate court applied the two-pronged Strickland standard and analyzed prejudice and reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to extraneous offenses?	Lemons claims objections should have been made to inadmissible extraneous acts.	Counsel's decisions could be strategic; some questions may have been legitimate.	No reversible error; record shows no ineffective assistance.
Did counsel’s elicitation of extraneous-offense testimony prejudice the defense?	Elicitation of prior aggressive acts toward Karen tainted the jury.	Questions may have been strategic; not per se ineffective.	Not shown to cause prejudice; evidence supported the verdict.
Did failure to request a limiting instruction at admission of extraneous evidence require reversal?	Limiting instruction should have been requested and given when evidence was admitted.	Trial court’s charge already instructed on use of extraneous evidence; likely harmless.	No reversible error; jury instruction was sufficient.

Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ineffective assistance requires a record-supported showing of deficient performance and prejudice)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (two-pronged Strickland standard governs ineffective-assistance claims)
Wallace v. State, 75 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (illustrates undeveloped record issue on direct appeal in ineffective-assistance claims)
Ex parte Imoudu, 284 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (applies Strickland to Texas capital/post-conviction context)
Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (mandates keeping two-strand Strickland inquiry for ineffective assistance)
Haagensen v. State, 346 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (discusses strategy and scope of objections to extraneous-offense evidence)
Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (offense-specific evidence and trial strategy considerations)
Pedersen v. State, 237 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (timely requested limiting instruction requirement for extraneous acts)
Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (jury presumed to follow court instructions on extraneous evidence)
Higginbotham v. State, 356 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (affirms evaluation of trial-record implications on limiting instructions)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (conveys fairness standard for evidentiary trial procedures)