Joel Contreras-Aguilar v. the State of Texas, 03-20-00112-CR

Defendant Joel Contreras-Aguilar convicted of multiple sexual offenses against two stepdaughters (two counts aggravated sexual assault, one count sexual assault, two counts indecency by contact) and sentenced to 10 and 40 years on various counts.
Victims J.O., E.H., and sister Z.O. testified to repeated sexual contact, with inconsistencies: E.H. and Z.O. initially denied abuse to interviewers and later recanted; no physical evidence was introduced and police did not search the home.
Evidence showed Contreras-Aguilar left for Mexico in 2009 and did not return until 2018; he made a recorded statement to police saying he went to Mexico (claimed for business).
Trial counsel: did not object to the mother's testimony about an anonymous phone call suggesting flight; agreed evidence of numerous extraneous sexual acts would be admissible under article 38.37; called no witnesses at guilt or punishment phases and did not call a mitigation expert.
On direct appeal, Contreras-Aguilar argued trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to hearsay, (2) failing to object to extraneous-offense evidence (Rules 404/403), and (3) failing to investigate/present mitigation or call witnesses. The court affirmed convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to object to hearsay (mother's anonymous-call testimony)	Trial counsel deficient for not objecting; testimony suggested flight and improperly bolstered guilt	Counsel may have reasonably chosen not to object (avoid drawing attention); recorded interview and timeline already showed he went to Mexico	No ineffective assistance — record silent as to counsel’s reasons; presumption of strategy; failure not objectively unreasonable
Failure to object to extraneous-offense evidence (Rule 404/403)	Counsel ineffective for allowing evidence of other acts (grooming, repeated acts, exposure) that unfairly prejudiced jury	Article 38.37 authorizes extraneous-act evidence in child-sex cases; many acts were same conduct or relevant to state of mind/relationship; 403 objection likely futile	No ineffective assistance — evidence admissible under art. 38.37 or as multiple-occurrence proof; Rule 403 balance favored admission; objections would likely be overruled
Failure to call witnesses / engage mitigation expert / investigate mitigation	Counsel ineffective for not presenting witnesses or mitigation to reduce punishment or support defenses	Appellant failed to identify witnesses or what investigation would have revealed; no motion for new trial or hearing to develop record	No ineffective assistance — speculative claim; appellant did not show available witnesses/evidence or reasonable probability of a different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Burch v. State, 541 S.W.3d 816 (defines reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
Miller v. State, 548 S.W.3d 497 (Texas Crim. App. discussion of ineffective-assistance review)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (presumption of reasonable trial strategy when record silent)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (ineffectiveness claims must be firmly founded in record)
Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (futility of objections and counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)
Hitt v. State, 53 S.W.3d 697 (admissibility of extraneous acts in child-sex cases under article 38.37)
Brown v. State, 6 S.W.3d 571 (multiple occurrences of charged sexual acts may be admitted)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Rule 403 presumption that probative value generally outweighs prejudice)
Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807 (evidence is not excluded under Rule 403 simply because it is prejudicial)