McClain, Charles Douglas Iii, PD-0404-15

McClain was convicted by bench trial of indecency with a child and sentenced to 25 years in prison after pleading true to a State enhancement in Upshur County.
The State presented a custodial interview where McClain allegedly admitted touching the victim; defense objected to the witness testimony.
The trial court overruled the objection; the record discussed whether the interview and any polygraph context were admissible under Art. 38.22.
The State filed an enhancement notice before trial, later clarifying the punishment range; McClain pled true to the enhancement.
McClain waived a jury trial and proceeded with a bench trial based on incorrect admonitions about punishment; later, the defense sought community supervision but learned McClain was not eligible.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and McClain sought discretionary review arguing (i) admissibility preservation and (ii) ineffective assistance regarding probation eligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility preservation under Art. 38.22	McClain argues the trial objection comported with the error on appeal.	McClain contends the State violated Art. 38.22 by admitting an oral custodial statement.	Point not preserved; appeal preserved error fails.
Ineffective assistance regarding probation eligibility	McClain asserts counsel’s erroneous probation advice violated Strickland prongs.	State contends counsel’s performance met the first prong but record lacks prejudice.	Counsel deficient but not shown to prejudice outcome; judgment affirmed.

Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation requires specific objection and ruling)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (point of error must comport with trial objection)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)