Paul Wayne Harris v. State, 14-14-00514-CR

Background

Paul Wayne Harris was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment plus an $8,000 fine.
Incident: complainant (his wife) called 911 reporting Harris threatened her with a handgun after she had filed for divorce; Harris admitted being at the apartment complex but denied threats or possessing a gun.
On appeal Harris raised a single issue: trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object or make offers of proof across multiple trial events.
The alleged failures encompassed both guilt-innocence and punishment phases (questions cut off by the court, admission of statements, testimony about victim compensation and an STD, photographic evidence, and State’s punishment argument).
The Court applied the Strickland two-prong test and Texas precedent requiring a developed record to show deficient performance unless counsel’s conduct is so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to object to questioning about Victim Compensation Fund	Harris: counsel should have preserved error when court foreclosed questions about victim compensation (credibility issue).	State/Court: court directed to move on after considerable questioning; strategic acquiescence reasonable.	No deficient performance; topic was explored and counsel’s compliance could be tactical.
Admission of detective testimony that Harris admitted being at the complex	Harris: counsel should have objected under art. 38.22 (custodial statement predicate/voluntariness).	State/Court: Harris made no claim he was in custody or statement involuntary; testimony could be admissible (hearsay exception).	No deficient performance; evidence plausibly admissible and record silent on counsel’s strategy.
Foreclosure of questions about complainant’s STD	Harris: counsel failed to object when court cut off STD questioning.	State/Court: multiple questions asked; State objected for relevance and court sustained; record does not show foreclosure without objection.	No deficient performance; record does not support claim counsel failed to object to an unpreserved ruling.
Court directing counsel to "move on" about prior-photograph questioning	Harris: counsel should have objected when court curtailed examination about prior injuries (photographs).	State/Court: photographs already admitted and jury saw them; compliance with court’s direction could be strategic.	No deficient performance; reasonable trial strategy to avoid repetition.
Prevented re-litigation of guilt during punishment phase	Harris: counsel ineffective for not objecting/offering proof when questions touching guilt were cut off at punishment.	State/Court: re-trying guilt at punishment is not permitted; objection would have been overruled.	No deficient performance; counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections.
Failure to object to judge’s reprimand/comments in jury’s presence	Harris: counsel should have objected to trial judge’s public reprimand.	State/Court: comments not calculated to injure rights and did not deprive appellant of fair trial.	No deficient performance; remarks not reversible error.
Failure to object to State's punishment-phase argument about protecting community	Harris: counsel should have objected to argument invoking community protection and future victims.	State/Court: argument falls within acceptable law-enforcement/penal policy argument, not an appeal to community sentiment for a specific result.	No deficient performance; any objection likely would have been overruled.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (burden to show both deficient performance and prejudice)
Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance on review)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (direct appeal usually an inadequate vehicle for ineffectiveness claims)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial counsel should be afforded opportunity to explain decisions)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (may not reverse when counsel’s actions may reflect tactical decisions)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (rare for ineffectiveness to be apparent on direct appeal)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (deficient performance must be so outrageous no competent attorney would have acted that way)
Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (failure to object is ineffective only if trial court would have erred in overruling objection)
McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (failure to object to admissible evidence is not ineffective assistance)
Motley v. State, 773 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (argument urging law enforcement/community protection falls within acceptable jury argument)