Jason Paul Harper v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6655

Appellant Jason Paul Harper was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm and possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver.
On appeal Harper raised a single issue: ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase because defense counsel rested and presented no punishment evidence.
The court applied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance and relied on guidance from Wiggins about reasonable investigation and from Ex parte Bowman about assessing performance in context.
The court explained the burden on the appellant: show (1) existence of mitigating evidence that counsel should have presented, and (2) that counsel’s omission was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Harper did not identify any mitigating evidence in the record or explain why counsel’s decision to rest was unreasonable.
The court held Harper failed to meet his burden and affirmed the trial court’s judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harper received ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment	Harper: counsel was ineffective by resting and presenting no punishment evidence	State: counsel need not present mitigating evidence in every case; Harper failed to identify any mitigating evidence or show unreasonableness	Court: No ineffective assistance — Harper failed to prove deficient performance or identify mitigating evidence

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel has duty to investigate; strategic choices after thorough investigation are given deference)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (applies Strickland standard in Texas criminal appeals)
Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (isolated errors judged against totality of representation)