Julio Cesar Haro v. State, 371 S.W.3d 262

Harris County grand jury indicted Haro in two cases for aggravated sexual assault of a child under Tex. Penal Code § 22.021.
Jury convicted Haro on both charges and sentenced him to 25 years’ confinement for each offense.
On appeal, Haro challenged the trial court’s voir dire explanation of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and claimed ineffective assistance for trial counsel’s failure to object.
The court reviews for fundamental error in the voir dire and applies Strickland standards for ineffective assistance.
The court held Haro waived error by failing to object and the comments were not fundamental error.
The court further held Haro failed to prove ineffective assistance under Strickland, affirming the trial judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the voir dire error fundamental despite waiver?	Haro—error; comments misstate standard.	State—no fundamental error; waiver applies.	Waived; not fundamental error.
Did trial counsel's failure to object amount to ineffective assistance?	Haro—counsel ineffective for not objecting.	State—no Strickland prejudice; record lacking.	Strickland not satisfied; no ineffective assistance.

Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (jurisprudence on reasonable-doubt standard and evidence)
Wansing v. Hargett, 341 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (federal fundamental-error analysis for reasonable doubt comments)
Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fundamental-error standard for voir dire comments in plurality)
Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (objection preservation and non-biasing voir dire remarks)
Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (waiver of complaint about reasonable-doubt explanation)
Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (non-prejudicial voir dire comments and waiver)
Moore v. State, 907 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (waiver for voir dire comments about weight of evidence)