Shawn Deroyce Sargeon v. the State of Texas, 14-19-00719-CR

Background

On May 10, 2018 three masked men robbed a Valero; a tracking device was hidden in a stack of cash taken during the robbery. A red sedan later fled officers, crashed on I‑10, and three black males were seen fleeing; Sargeon was apprehended hiding in nearby bamboo.
Items taken from the Valero (including Newport and Swisher Sweet cigarettes), the tracking device, and a purse were recovered from the red sedan; officers also recovered two firearms. Surveillance video showed three masked robbers entering the store and a blue SUV at the scene earlier.
Forensics produced a preliminary fingerprint association between prints from the red sedan and Sargeon. Two witnesses also tied Sargeon to prior 2011 aggravated robberies; the trial court allowed those convictions into evidence for a limited rebuttal purpose and gave a limiting instruction.
Defense strategy at trial focused on mistaken identity: counsel conceded Sargeon evaded police and was in the car but argued he was not one of the robbers. Defense opening and witness questioning emphasized identity as the primary defense.
On appeal Sargeon claimed ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds: (1) opening statement opened the door to admission of prior aggravated robbery convictions, and (2) voir dire remarks (that counsel’s role was to "defend the Constitution") showed abdication/conflict of interest.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals applied Strickland (and Cuyler where relevant), concluded counsel’s conduct was consistent with a reasonable identity-based strategy and not a conflict, and affirmed the conviction (30 years’ confinement).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s opening statement opened the door to evidence of prior aggravated robberies and constituted ineffective assistance	Sargeon: counsel unnecessarily opened the door to prior like offenses; no reasonable strategy justified it; ineffective assistance	State: counsel reasonably pursued identity defense; opening was part of that strategy; admission permitted to rebut defense theory	Court: Counsel’s opening was consistent with a plausible identity strategy; not deficient; no Strickland relief; admission proper as rebuttal
Whether voir dire statements that counsel’s role is to “defend the Constitution” created a conflict/abdication and ineffective assistance	Sargeon: counsel abdicated client representation and represented the Constitution instead, creating a conflict under Cuyler	State: statements described counsel’s professional duty to protect constitutional rights; no divided or adverse interests shown	Court: Statements reflected zealous advocacy of constitutional protections, not a conflict; no ineffective assistance under Cuyler/Strickland

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (applying Strickland in Texas)
Dabney v. State, 492 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (opening statement can open the door to extraneous‑offense evidence)
Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (direct appeal often inadequate to evaluate counsel without counsel’s explanation; "outrageous" exception)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (review considers totality of circumstances in ineffective‑assistance claims)
Cannon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defense counsel’s duty to zealously protect client’s rights)