Background

• Bennett was indicted for aggravated assault allegedly occurring on June 5, 2007, with the date stated as April 27, 1975 in the indictment’s timeline.
• Bennett moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the indictment on statute-of-limitations grounds.
• The trial judge granted a new trial, concluding counsel should have preserved the challenge for appeal despite uncertainty on the correct limitations period.
• The court of appeals reversed, holding the law on the applicable period was unsettled and thus counsel’s failure to raise the issue was not ineffective.
• This Court affirmed the court of appeals, ruling the statute-of-limitations issue was unsettled at the time and thus counsel was not ineffective.
• Concurrences and dissents discuss whether the applicable limitations period was two years (Article 12.03(d)) or three years (Article 12.01 catch-all), with Johnson, Cochran, and Keller providing nuanced interpretations.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Hunter v. State, 576 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (stated three-year limit for aggravated assault in dicta)
• Ex parte Salas, 724 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (discussed three-year limit for aggravated assault in dicta)
• Ex parte Matthews, 933 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (held aggravated perjury two years; discussed same-for-primary-crime rule)
• Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (overruled Matthews on other grounds; informs limitations analysis)
• Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (cited regarding how law should be evaluated under Strickland)
• GRAHAM v. STATE? (placeholder to align with actual opinions if cited), 0 S.W.3d 0 (Tex.App.) (not used)