Robert Earl Buckley v. State, 05-14-00296-CR

Robert Earl Buckley was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance (<1 gram) and sentenced to one year in jail.
On appeal Buckley argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file/move for a suppression hearing on evidence seized during the investigation.
Counsel had filed an omnibus pretrial motion that generally requested suppression of unconstitutionally obtained evidence but, at a pretrial hearing, told the court he was not seeking a suppression hearing and did not move to suppress.
Buckley filed a motion for new trial but did not raise ineffective assistance of counsel or request an evidentiary hearing on that claim.
The appellate record contains no explanation of counsel’s strategic reasons for declining a suppression hearing; the record is therefore silent on counsel’s rationale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a suppression hearing	Buckley: counsel was deficient for failing to pursue suppression, and prejudice is shown because evidence was admitted	State: counsel’s choice may have been strategic; record is silent and strong presumption of effective assistance applies	Court: Affirmed — record is silent; Buckley failed to overcome presumption of reasonable assistance; claim not shown on direct appeal

Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ineffective-assistance claims must be firmly founded in the record)
Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App.) (courts will presume strategic motive where imaginable)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App.) (counsel should ordinarily be given opportunity to explain actions before found ineffective)
Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App.) (habeas is often the proper vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims when record is silent)