This appeal was originally abated when the State appealed a new trial granted by the trial court based upon an implied finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 16, 2014, this court issued a plurality opinion in State v. Barrow, finding the trial

court abused its discretion when it granted that new trial. ^[1] Barrow’s motion for *2 rehearing was overruled, ^[2] and a petition for discretionary review was refused by the Court of Criminal Appeals. ^[3]

The abatement having now been lifted, this court has once again found that Barrow’s ineffective assista nce claim fails because “the court did not have before it evidence of [trial counsel’s] reasons for focusing on urging the jury to honor Shirley Barrow’s wishes rather than pursuing a claim of self - defense.” With myopic precision, the court again focuses on the absence of direct evidence concerning counsel’s trial strategy, ignoring all other evidence upon which a finding of ineffective assistance could be based. Because I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that direct evidence of trial couns el’s trial strategy is some sort of talisman essential to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, I respectfully dissent. See Ex parte Bryant , 448 S.W.3d 29, 39- 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that “when no reasonable strategy could justify trial counsel’ s conduct . . . counsel’s performance fall s below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of law, regardless of whether the record adequately reflects the trial counsel’s subjecti ve reasons for acting as he did ”).

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.

[1] State v. Barrow, No. 07-13-00147-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7762 (Tex. App. — Amarillo July 16, 2014, pet. ref’ d) (mem. op., not designated for publication), Justice Campbell writing for the court. Chief Justice Quinn filed a concurring opinion and Justice Pirtle filed a dissenting opinion.

[2] State v. Barrow, No. 07-13-00147-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9332 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Aug. 20, 2014 , pet ref’ d) (with notation that Pirtle, J., would grant the motion for rehearing).

[3] State v. Barrow, No. PD-1268-14, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 70 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 4, 2015). 2