Orlando Salazar v. State, 01-15-00365-CR

Orlando Salazar challenged a 6-year confinement sentence following a 2008 aggravated assault in Tom Green County.
Salazar had entered a guilty plea to one paragraph of the indictment under a deferred adjudication that was extended in 2012 for five years.
On February 19, 2015, a hearing on the State's fifth amended motion to adjudicate occurred and Salazar pled not true to all allegations.
The trial court adjudicated Salazar and sentenced him to six years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Incarcerated Detention (TDCJ-ID).
Salazar filed a pro se appeal, alleging deficient performance by counsel and numerous constitutional and due process violations.
Salazar asserts procedural and substantive errors including lack of corpus delicti, Brady material nondisclosure, conflicts of interest, and color-of-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Corpus delicti and jurisdiction	Salazar argues corpus delicti was not proven and jurisdiction is lacking.	State contends proper prosecution and jurisdiction were established.	Not stated in excerpt.
Constitutional rights and due process	Salazar asserts multiple constitutional violations (Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth) and due process denial.	State defends trial procedures as compliant with law.	Not stated in excerpt.
Ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady material	Salazar contends counsel was ineffective and Brady material was not disclosed.	State argues no Brady violation evidenced in record.	Not stated in excerpt.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. Supreme Court (1963)) (prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory material required)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court (1984)) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. Supreme Court (1965)) (confrontation and identification principles vouchsafed)