Victor Manuel Pensado v. State
07-14-00401-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 1, 2015Background
- Pensado was convicted of cockfighting, i.e., cruelty to animals, and sentenced to one year in a state jail facility.
- He appealed claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not calling witnesses to support that he did not knowingly engage in cockfighting.
- He also claimed counsel failed to call favorable witnesses to aid his probation plea.
- To prove ineffective assistance, he must show deficient performance and a reasonable probability the outcome would have differed, and counsel must be allowed to explain actions.
- The court emphasized trial strategy as to witness decisions and held counsel had not been given a chance to explain his actions; thus relief was inappropriate, and the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of trial counsel for failing to call witnesses | Pensado argues counsel failed to call witnesses to support lack of knowledge about cockfighting | State argues witness decisions are trial strategy and counsel must be allowed to explain | No reversible error; cannot condemn strategy without explanation; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (establishes performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial counsel must be given opportunity to explain actions before deeming ineffective)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (absolves condemnation of counsel’s strategy absent explanation)