Michael E. C. Donald v. State, 14-16-00232-CR

Appellant Michael E. C. Donald was charged with an offense enhanced by four prior family-violence assault convictions alleged in the indictment (Apr 2009, May 2011, Nov 2013, Jul 2015).
At arraignment appellant pleaded “not true” to the April 2009 enhancement and “true” to the other three in the jury’s presence.
After the State’s case, defense counsel stipulated to admission of certified copies of the three enhancement paragraphs (the same three appellant had pleaded true to), outside the jury’s presence; the State abandoned the first enhancement paragraph.
On appeal appellant complained counsel was ineffective for stipulating to three enhancement convictions when only one was required for jurisdictional purposes.
The dissent (Justice Donovan) would find no deficient performance because the record is silent on counsel’s strategy, appellant himself had pleaded true to the three enhancements in open court, and there was no motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to three enhancement convictions when only one was needed for jurisdiction	Counsel’s stipulation to three enhancements was unnecessary and prejudicial; this was ineffective assistance	Counsel’s actions fall within reasonable professional strategy; record silent as to motive and appellant pleaded true to those convictions in open court	Dissent would find Strickland first prong not met — no deficient performance shown in the record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test and deference to counsel’s strategy)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (presumption that counsel’s conduct is reasonable and direct appeal often inadequate to decide ineffectiveness)
Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (same principle of deference to trial counsel)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (record often undeveloped on direct appeal for ineffectiveness claims)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (will not find deficiency if record silent unless conduct is so outrageous no competent attorney would have engaged in it)
Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (judicial scrutiny must be highly deferential and avoid hindsight)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (where no direct evidence of counsel’s strategy, courts may imagine any reasonably sound strategy)