Johnny Melchor MacIas v. State, 539 S.W.3d 410

Johnny Melchor Macias was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by exposure; after pleading true to two enhancement paragraphs, punishment was 35 years’ imprisonment.
The complainant D.M., then 14 at trial, alleged repeated sexual contact and exposure by Macias beginning when she was a child; no physical exam corroborated sexual contact and evidence was largely testimonial.
A forensic interviewer (Erika Gomez) testified she found D.M. credible during her interview; defense counsel did not object to that credibility testimony at trial.
The trial was presided over by a retired senior visiting judge (Reagan Clark); the record did not affirmatively show the judge had taken the constitutional oaths, and Macias did not object at trial.
The judgment assessed $759 in court costs post-conviction, including $80 for summoning witnesses/mileage under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.011; Macias claimed the witness/mileage fee, as applied, violated his confrontation and compulsory-process rights.

Issue	Macias’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to forensic interviewer’s opinion on complainant’s credibility	Counsel was deficient for not objecting to impermissible opinion testimony that vouched for D.M.; this was fundamental	Record is silent on counsel’s strategy; single opinion did not prejudice outcome	Denied. Silent record fails to show deficient performance; alternatively no prejudice shown; claim overruled
Visiting judge’s oath of office	Judgment void because record does not show visiting senior judge took constitutional oaths	Presumption of regularity applies; appellant must present prima facie proof to rebut it; no such proof here	Denied. Presumption of regularity not overcome; issue overruled
As-applied challenge to $80 witness/mileage court cost (art. 102.011)	Fee against indigent defendant denied confrontation and compulsory-process rights because it deterred subpoenaing favorable witnesses	Fee is assessed only post-conviction; appellant offered no proof of material, favorable witnesses he could not obtain because of the fee	Denied. Appellant failed to show any material/favorable witness unavailable; right to confront was not impaired

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. Crim. App.) (expert may not give direct opinion on witness truthfulness)
Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App.) (experts cannot vouch for complainant generally)
Coleman v. State, 966 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Crim. App.) (compulsory process guarantees only material and favorable witnesses)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (explains Confrontation Clause purpose)