John Vincent Cruz v. State, 08-13-00297-CR

Appellant John Vincent Cruz, a hairdresser close to a family, was indicted for two counts of indecency with a child by contact after the child J.B. reported sexual assaults occurring while Cruz babysat him.
Forensic interview and police investigation led to Cruz’s arrest and trial; jury found him guilty on both counts.
Voir dire revealed many venire members rated indecency as extremely serious; several panelists volunteered personal experiences with sexual crimes, but none of the seated jurors expressed bias or inability to consider the full punishment range.
At guilt/innocence the State called J.B., his mother, and the investigating detective; defense presented Cruz’s mother as an alibi witness.
At punishment the prosecutor argued for maximum sentences, characterizing Cruz as someone who "likes little boys;" jury imposed maximum terms (20 years and $10,000 fine on each count).
Cruz appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire, guilt/innocence (cross-examination), and punishment (failure to object to prosecutor’s argument).

Issue	Cruz's Argument	State/Defense (trial counsel) Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance during voir dire and guilt/innocence	Counsel failed to explore alibi, probe for crime/sex-crime victims, curtail/seek bench disclosures, ask about ability to consider minimum punishment, and elicited prejudicial testimony on cross	Record is silent on counsel’s reasons; plausible strategic choices (focus on witness credibility, limited voir dire time); any elicited unfavorable testimony could be tactical; no preserved record of deficient strategy or prejudice	Trial counsel’s performance was not shown to be deficient; no Strickland prejudice shown; claim overruled
2. Ineffective assistance at punishment (failure to object to prosecutor’s "likes little boys" argument)	Counsel should have objected because argument was outside the record and implied irreformability	Prosecutor’s argument was a permissible plea for law enforcement and reasonable deduction from evidence presented; objection not required	Argument was proper; failure to object not ineffective assistance; claim overruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (discusses evaluation of ineffective assistance on direct appeal and silent records)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (same; counsel afforded opportunity to explain actions)
Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (rare direct-appeal reversal for ineffective assistance when record supports it)
Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391 (effective assistance does not require errorless representation)
Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (proper jury argument includes reasonable deductions and pleas for law enforcement)
Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519 (failure to object to proper argument cannot constitute ineffective assistance)