Ricky Allen Dyise v. State, 05-16-01408-CR

Ricky Allen Dyise, a homeless man, was arrested April 23, 2016, on outstanding public-intoxication warrants after an interaction with Sgt. Ross Stinson; officers used a Taser to de-escalate and handcuffed him.
During transport and at the City Detention Center, Dyise made explicit threats to kill Stinson and his family and said “It’s not a threat, it’s a promise.” Officers found him unusually agitated and violent-seeming.
Stinson later encountered Dyise on April 28; Dyise again made violent threats, assumed a combative stance, refused orders, began shedding clothes, and was arrested following backup response.
At trial, the court allowed testimony about Dyise’s prior violent-related offenses after finding his counsel had opened the door by eliciting reasons for Stinson’s fear; the jury convicted Dyise of retaliation.
Dyise received a sentence of ten years’ confinement, suspended for six years’ community supervision, and a $1,000 fine; on appeal he raised a single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court modified the judgment to reflect the $1,000 fine and affirmed, concluding the record was insufficient on direct appeal to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.

Issue	Dyise's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for admission of extraneous-offense/bad-character evidence	Counsel opened the door or failed to object to extraneous-offense evidence and failed to investigate prior offenses	Trial record does not show counsel was ineffective; counsel may have had reasonable strategy; Dyise didn’t preserve detailed complaints in a motion for new trial	Affirmed: Record on direct appeal is undeveloped; strong presumption of reasonable assistance; Strickland not shown
Whether trial court erred by allowing State’s argument that Dyise opened the door to extraneous offenses	Counsel failed to object to State’s closing/argument	State contends evidence and argument were permissible because Dyise’s testimony invited inquiry into prior conduct	Denied: appellate record does not support ineffective-assistance claim for failing to object
Admission of prior convictions/extraneous-offense testimony	Evidence improperly prejudicial and introduced without proper foundation	Trial court found counsel opened the door; testimony relevant to Stinson’s fear	Denied: trial court’s ruling stands; appellate record insufficient to overturn
Judgment omitting fine	N/A (not raised by parties)	Record shows fine assessed; appellate court may correct clerical error	Modified judgment to reflect $1,000 fine and affirmed as modified

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims often fail because the record is undeveloped)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable; assumption of strategy when plausible)
Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (silent record usually will not overcome presumption of reasonable assistance)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (counsel should ordinarily be given opportunity to explain actions before denouncing performance as ineffective)
Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (habeas corpus is the more appropriate vehicle for many ineffective-assistance claims)
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate courts may correct judgments to make the record speak the truth)