Michael John James v. State, 03-15-00241-CR

Defendant Michael John James was tried in bench trial for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (vehicle) and convicted; sentenced to 3 years; appeal raises ineffective-assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to object to police officer testimony that the truck was a "deadly weapon."
Incident: roadside road‑rage episode; complainant Sadai Simms reported being cut off, threatened, and briefly driven onto a curb; no injuries or vehicle damage were shown at trial; traffic described as "real slow."
State introduced a 6+ minute 911 recording and complainant testimony; patrol officer Everett Beldin (10 years’ patrol experience) testified he knew the statutory definition of "deadly weapon" and—based on Simms’ report and his training—opined the vehicle was a deadly weapon. No voir dire or qualification of the officer as an expert on vehicles/accident reconstruction was conducted.
Trial counsel did not object to the officer’s opinion under Texas Rules of Evidence 701/702/705, nor request a hearing on the officer’s qualifications or factual basis.
Appellant argues that, without the officer’s expert opinion, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a deadly‑weapon finding (no damage, no injury, low speed, no third‑party danger), so counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (James)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to police officer testifying that vehicle was a deadly weapon	Counsel’s failure to object to unqualified expert opinion was objectively unreasonable; officer wasn’t shown to have requisite training/experience or factual basis; without that opinion evidence of deadly‑weapon use is insufficient, so prejudice exists	(Implicit) Officer’s testimony was permissible and the totality of evidence supports deadly‑weapon finding	The brief urges reversal/remand or reduction to misdemeanor; the document presents the legal argument but is an appellant brief rather than a final appellate ruling

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (vehicle as deadly weapon requires more than speculation; must show actual danger of serious harm)
McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses counsel performance standards and review on direct appeal)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption of reasonable assistance; silent record ordinarily insufficient for ineffective‑assistance claim)