Randy Eugene Smith v. State, 13-15-00442-CR

Appellant Randy Eugene Smith was indicted for forgery with two prior felonies, elevating punishment to 2–20 years and a $10,000 fine.
Jury selection, appellant’s not guilty plea, and opening statements occurred on 3/9/15; appellant was absent when court reconvened the morning of 3/10/15.
The record contains no on-the-record judicial finding that Smith voluntarily absented himself, and the court did not appear to inquire whether his absence was involuntary (e.g., arrest, medical emergency).
Trial proceeded in Smith’s absence; the prosecutor and judge commented to the jury that Smith had “voluntarily absented himself.”
The jury convicted Smith and later assessed punishment at 20 years and a $10,000 fine; sentencing occurred months later after Smith was located.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing to make an on‑the‑record finding that appellant voluntarily absented himself	Smith: Article 33.03 requires personal presence unless defendant voluntarily absents; court made no inquiry and improperly presumed voluntariness, violating confrontation rights	State: (not set out in this brief)	Record contains no judicial finding; appellant contends this was error and infringed Sixth Amendment rights
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to proceeding in appellant's absence	Smith: Counsel’s failure to object and failure to challenge prosecutor/judge remarks was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland	State: (not set out in this brief)	Appellant asserts counsel’s performance fell below objective standards and likely affected outcome; trial record lacks any objection

Garcia v. State, 919 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless‑error analysis applies to absence/ confrontation claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)