Marquis Deshawn Clark Jr. v. the State of Texas, 09-20-00083-CR

Background

Appellant Marquis Deshawn Clark Jr. was indicted for aggravated robbery with a firearm; a jury found him guilty and assessed life imprisonment.
Surveillance and investigation linked four suspects in a takeover-style Circle K robbery to a second robbery at an adult bookstore roughly 30 minutes later: same black Dodge truck, similar clothing (skull masks, red gloves), and stolen Newport cigarettes found in the abandoned vehicle.
Clark’s cell phone yielded a photo of him with a high-capacity semi-automatic firearm, Google searches about the robberies, and messages referencing the events; Clark’s Texas ID and unopened cigarette packs were found in a backpack in the truck.
Three co-defendants (Craige, Jackson, Lucas) pleaded guilty; Craige and the others identified or implicated Clark; Jackson and Lucas testified at Clark’s trial implicating him (including that Clark wore red gloves and forced sexual acts at the adult bookstore).
Defense counsel consented to admission of the adult-bookstore robbery evidence at trial (initially objecting only to sexual-assault details), and the trial court admitted multiple extraneous "takeover" robberies as identity/common scheme evidence under Rule 404(b); Clark raised six appellate issues—all targeting admission of extraneous-offense evidence and related counsel/prosecutor conduct.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Due process/right to be tried only for charged offense	Admission of extraneous-robbery evidence prosecuted Clark for a "criminal episode" and denied his right to be tried only for the indicted offense	Appellant failed to preserve a due-process objection at trial; jury was instructed only on the indicted offense	Forfeited; overruled
2. Trial court failed to apply correct law re: contextual transaction vs. extraneous-offense (404(b))	Court confused Chapter 3 criminal-episode doctrine and 404(b), admitting unrelated bad acts to prove identity	Defense agreed identity was at issue; trial court limited extraneous evidence to similar, temporally close "takeover" robberies; admission reviewed for abuse of discretion	No abuse of discretion; admission proper under 404(b) or at least within zone of reasonable disagreement; overruled
3. Failure to perform Rule 403 probative/prejudice balancing	Trial court did not conduct required 403 balancing; evidence was more prejudicial than probative	Record shows pretrial hearing and limits imposed; presumption that court performed the balancing when 403 invoked	Presumed trial court performed 403 analysis; appellant failed to overcome presumption; overruled
4. Prosecutorial misconduct for presenting inadmissible evidence	Prosecutor breached duty to ensure only admissible evidence was presented	Appellant did not object at trial, request curative instruction, or move for mistrial—required to preserve prosecutorial-misconduct claim	Issue not preserved; overruled
5. Ineffective assistance—failure to object to "non-contextual" extraneous offenses	Counsel’s failure to object deprived Clark of effective assistance and a fair trial	Record silent as to counsel’s strategy; counsel objected at several points and affirmatively consented to some evidence; to prevail Clark must show deficiency and prejudice under Strickland	Record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice; claim fails
6. Ineffective assistance—failure to raise Rule 404(b) objection at guilt/innocence	Counsel should have objected under 404(b) earlier; omission prejudiced defense	Trial counsel litigated 404(b) issues pretrial and limited evidence; appellate record lacks explanation for counsel’s choices and fails Strickland showing	Failure to prove both deficiency and prejudice; claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings).
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial court ruling will be upheld if correct on any applicable theory).
Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (erroneous admission of evidence is non-constitutional error; reversible only if it affected substantial rights).
Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (same-transaction/contextual evidence doctrine).
Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (necessity for same-transaction evidence to explain context).
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (factors for Rule 403 balancing).
Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court must perform Rule 403 balancing when properly invoked; court presumed to have done so).
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (preservation rules for appellate review of evidentiary/due-process claims).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective-assistance claims).