Roy Castillo v. the State of Texas, 01-19-00485-CR

Roy Castillo was charged with escape from custody while charged with a felony (indictment specified robbery); he fled after officers uncuffed him briefly at a hospital restroom and was recaptured.
Defense obtained a motion in limine and a court order forbidding use of the word robbery and barring extraneous-offense references unless the State approached the bench for a ruling.
During the guilt phase Officer Tabora testified two officers escorted Castillo because he had previously "evaded on foot," and later the prosecutor asked Officer Farmer on the record whether investigators had been told not to mention the robbery; defense counsel made no objections.
The jury convicted Castillo of escape and, at punishment, found two prior felony enhancements (robbery and tampering with evidence) and imposed a 25-year sentence under the habitual-offender statute.
Castillo appealed arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting extraneous-offense evidence in violation of Texas Rules of Evidence 403 and 404, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to that evidence.

Issue	Castillo's argument	State's argument	Held
Admissibility of extraneous-offense references (Tabora's evasion remark and prosecutor's on-the-record reference to "robbery" admonition)	Statements were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Tex. R. Evid. 401, 403, 404(b)	No timely, specific objection was made at trial; motion in limine does not preserve error	Overruled: error not preserved because defense failed to object when the statements were made
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to those statements	Counsel was deficient for not objecting and prejudice is presumed because jury heard improper extraneous matters	Record is inadequate to show deficient performance or prejudice; counsel may have employed a reasonable strategy	Overruled: appellant failed to meet Strickland prongs; record does not show deficiency or reasonable probability of different result

Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (timely, specific objection required to preserve evidentiary error)
Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation rules for appellate review)
Thierry v. State, 288 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (motions in limine do not preserve error)
Griggs v. State, 213 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (motion in limine is a preliminary ruling and not a final exclusion)
Brazzell v. State, 481 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (remedies for violating a motion in limine lie with the trial court)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (burden and standards for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (direct-appeal record often inadequate to show counsel ineffective; counsel should be allowed to explain)
Ex parte Bryant, 448 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reasonable strategy can include deliberate nonobjection to avoid highlighting a passing remark)