Martin v. State

40 Citing cases

  1. West v. State

    NO. 14-11-00204-CR (Tex. App. May. 8, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Eliciting testimony from an accused as to his own prior convictions can be a matter of sound trial strategy if the prior convictions are admissible. See Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).

  2. Scope v. State

    No. 01-08-00824-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 12, 2010)   Cited 2 times

    Admission of Prior Convictions Eliciting testimony from the defendant as to his own prior convictions can be a matter of sound trial strategy, if the prior convictions are admissible. Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 551, 558-59 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). However, if prior convictions are inadmissible, there can be no reasonable trial strategy for introducing them before the jury. Robertson v. State, 187 S.W.3d 475, 485-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Martin, 265 S.W.3d at 443; Rodriguez, 129 S.W.3d at 559. A trial court has wide latitude to admit or exclude evidence as it sees fit. Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). As long as the trial court's ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement, an appellate court will not disturb it. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Rule 609 provides that evidence of a witness's prior convictions is admissible for purposes of impeachment if the crime was a felony or a crime of moral turpitude and if the trial court determines its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. TEX. R. EVID. 609(a); Davis v. State, 259 S.W.3d 778, 780-81 (Tex. App.-Ho

  3. Guerra v. State

    NO. 01-15-00650-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 25, 2016)   Cited 6 times

    We have previously held that eliciting testimony from the accused as to his own prior convictions can be a matter of sound trial strategy, if the prior convictions are admissible. Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Rodriguez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 551, 558-59 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd)). The question becomes, then, whether it was reasonable for trial counsel to believe that the assault-family-violence conviction was admissible.

  4. Huerta v. State

    359 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that counsel "may have . . . decided to withhold objections to avoid drawing unwanted attention to a particular issue"

    Eliciting testimony from the accused as to his own prior conviction can be a matter of sound trial strategy, if the prior conviction is admissible. Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Indeed, it is common practice for defense attorneys to elicit such testimony because doing so removes the sting from an attack that would otherwise come from the state.

  5. Doyle v. State

    NO. 09-15-00311-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 26, 2017)

    Revealing unfavorable information about a defendant in jury selection, in our opinion, can be a legitimate trial strategy designed to improve the defendant's chances at achieving a favorable result in a trial. See Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Rodriguez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 551, 558-59 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd).

  6. Brown v. State

    NO. 01-10-00791-CR (Tex. App. May. 10, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    To obtain reversal of her conviction based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, Brown must make two showings: (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-94, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-68; Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 440 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). A failure to make either showing defeats an ineffective-assistance claim.

  7. Nelson v. State

    NO. 01-10-00783-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 27, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    With regard to the fourth and fifth factors, "[w]e consider the importance of appellant's testimony and of his credibility." Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 445 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Theus, 845 S.W.2d at 881). Texas courts use a sliding-scale analysis to determine admissibility.

  8. Lemons v. State

    No. 06-10-00097-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 16, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Eliciting testimony from the defendant as to his own prior convictions during the first phase of a trial can be a matter of sound trial strategy if the prior convictions are admissible. Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). However, if prior convictions are inadmissible, there can be no reasonable trial strategy one can imagine for having introduced them before the jury.

  9. Mcchristian v. State

    Nos. 01-09-01128-CR, 01-09-01129-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2010)

    ice not to request a limiting instruction. See Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that reviewing court may not speculate as to why trial counsel failed to request limiting instruction when record is silent, even if court has difficulty understanding counsel's actions). Likewise, we will not speculate as to why trial counsel did not request that the trial court conduct a Theus analysis prior to the entry into evidence of his prior convictions or speculate as to why counsel did not request a jury instruction on the legality of the initial traffic stop. The record in this case is again silent regarding these matters and provides no explanation of the motivation behind counsel's actions. Additionally, appellant did not elicit evidence or testimony regarding counsel's strategy at the motion for new trial hearing. Based solely on this silent record, we cannot say that no reasonable trial strategy could justify trial counsel's conduct. See Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 444-45 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance for not filing Theus motion when prior convictions were likely admissible and admission of prior convictions by counsel appeared to be strategic attempt to appear open and honest to jury and to lessen impact of any impeachment on issue); See also, e.g., Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 713-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (holding that, when record is silent as to counsel's strategy, counsel's failure to object to victim impact testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (holding that, when record is silent as to counsel's strategy, counsel's failure to object to State's attempts to elicit hearsay testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). We hold appellant has, therefore, failed to rebut the Strickland presumption that counsel's conduct was strategic in not requesting a Theus analysis or jury instruction about the legality of

  10. Sampson v. Stephens

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-3381 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015)

    This tactic is well-known, sound trial strategy. Martin v. State, 265 S.W.3d 435, 443 (Tex. App. --Houston [1st Dist] 2007, no pet.)." (Docket Entry No. 12-13, p. 51)