Richard Contreras, Sr. v. State, 01-14-00758-CR

Appellant Richard Contreras was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 50 years; motion for new trial denied; he appealed.
The State filed appellate briefing; oral argument was waived; the trial court certified waiver of appeal.
Jane, a ten-year-old niece, was repeatedly sexually abused by Contreras starting when she was six or seven.
Contreras gave multiple statements admitting various acts; evidence included PSI and interview materials showing guilt.
The trial court applied Strickland standards for ineffective assistance claims; the appellate court evaluated under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective at PSI and overall?	Contreras claims deficient performance harmed outcome.	Broholm’s performance was well above norms and not deficient.	No; totality of representation not deficient, no/prejudice shown.
Did counsel’s handling of mitigating evidence at PSI constitute ineffective assistance?	Broholm failed to develop mitigating evidence for trial.	Evidence investigation was adequate and available witnesses not shown.	No; appellant failed to prove available mitigating evidence would have changed outcome.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance?	Abuse of discretion due to counsel's alleged deficiencies.	Record supports denial; evidence of guilt overwhelming; no prejudice.	No; denial upheld; conviction affirmed.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (defendant’s preemption of strategy defeats ineffectiveness claim)
Duncan v. State, 717 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (defendant’s insistence on different defense defeats ineffectiveness claim)
Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (assistance analysis and record-based review standards)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (application of Strickland standard in Texas)
Mercado v. State, 615 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (record-anchored requirement for claims of ineffective assistance)
State v. Gill, 967 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial rulings)
Rodriguez v. State, 329 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (application of standards on ineffective assistance on appeal)
Salgado v. State, 2009 WL 3466430 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 29, 2009) (trial court’s assessment of mitigation evidence relevance)
Butler v. State, 716 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (need for available witnesses to prove ineffectiveness)