Polanco, Joe, PD-0491-15

Joe Polanco pleaded guilty (waived jury) to assault (lesser-included) and insurance fraud pursuant to plea agreements; court initially deferred adjudication for assault and probated the insurance-fraud sentence.
The State later filed petitions to adjudicate/revoke; Polanco pled true to most allegations; the trial court adjudicated guilt and imposed one year county jail (assault) and two years state jail (insurance fraud), to run concurrently.
Polanco filed motions for new trial and appealed pro se, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate investigation and preparation at the adjudication/revocation hearing.
He also complained the court of appeals allowed the State to file an untimely appellee brief and denied his request for oral argument.
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Fillmore, J.) affirmed: it held the record did not show counsel’s performance was deficient or that Polanco was prejudiced, and explained ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily not resolvable on direct appeal absent a developed record.

Issue	Polanco's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at the adjudication/revocation hearing	Counsel failed to investigate or prepare; had counsel acted properly the outcome would have been different	No evidence in record of deficient performance; presumption of reasonable strategy not rebutted	Affirmed — record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice; claim not firmly founded in the record
Whether the court of appeals erred by allowing the State to file an untimely brief and by denying oral argument	Court was prejudiced by allowing the State an untimely brief; denial of oral argument deprived Polanco of opportunity to present his claim	(Implicit) procedural rulings discretionary; timeliness/oral argument did not change outcome	Not independently dispositive in opinion — court resolved appeal on ineffective-assistance record defects and affirmed

Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (when ineffective-assistance claim may be raised first on direct appeal)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (ineffective-assistance claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (silent record normally does not overcome presumption of reasonable assistance)