Nathaniel Paul Fox v. State, 03-14-00617-CR

Appellant Nathaniel Paul Fox was indicted for Murder and Aggravated Assault (family/household member with a deadly weapon) arising from the same January 1, 2013 incident in New Braunfels, Texas.
Victim Melissa Eason was found deceased; medical examiner determined death by asphyxiation/strangulation (homicide).
Fox testified he choked Eason during a fight, believed she was breathing when he left, and later found her stiff; witnesses reported he admitted to "choking out" her.
Jury convicted Fox of both Murder and Aggravated Assault; the court assessed concurrent 60‑year sentences on each count.
On appeal Fox argues (1) dual convictions violate double jeopardy because aggravated assault is a lesser‑included offense of murder, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to cross‑examination about jailhouse threats/extraneous acts and for not requesting a limiting instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fox)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether convictions for both Murder and Aggravated Assault arising from the same transaction violate double jeopardy	Aggravated Assault is a lesser‑included offense of Murder as charged; punishing both is multiple punishment barred by double jeopardy; set aside the aggravated assault conviction	The State would argue the statutory elements differ such that dual convictions are permissible or that legislative intent allows separate punishments (implicit)	Appellant argues the aggravated assault conviction should be vacated as a lesser included offense (appellate remedy to reverse lesser conviction)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of appellant's jailhouse threats and for failing to request a limiting instruction	Cross‑examination introduced extraneous‑acts evidence (threats to injure inmates) in violation of Tex. R. Evid. 404(b); counsel performed deficiently by not objecting or requesting a limiting instruction, causing prejudice under Strickland	The State would justify questioning as impeachment or relevant to intent/violent propensity on an issue raised by defense; counsel may have had tactical reasons for not objecting	Appellant contends counsel's omission was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; appellate brief urges reversal or new trial due to ineffective assistance

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether two statutory offenses constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes)
Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (lesser‑included offense/double jeopardy principles)
Brigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (focus on charging instrument elements in double jeopardy analysis)
Gundy v. State, 213 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (when proof of one offense necessarily proves another; lesser‑included doctrine)
Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (remedy: affirm most serious conviction and vacate lesser when double jeopardy violated)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
Ruiz v. State, 579 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (general rule excluding extraneous‑acts evidence to show character conformity)