Without knowing what was omitted, the court is unable to address either prong of Strickland: we can neither evaluate the competency of trial counsel in omitting a submission nor the reasonably probable effect of such a submission if we are not informed of what counsel omitted showing the court. See Bone, 77 S.W.3d at 836 (clarifying that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must address specific acts or omissions); Phillips v. State, 804 S.W.2d 319, 323-24 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1991, no writ) (refusing to find deficient performance when record was "devoid of any proof of what witnesses or evidence could have been presented and what these witnesses or evidence would have shown in order to mitigate appellant's punishment").
"[T]he record before us is totally devoid of any proof of what witnesses or evidence could have been presented and what these witnesses or evidence would have shown in order to mitigate appellant's punishment." Phillips v. State, 804 S.W.2d 319, 323 (Tex. App. — Beaumout 1991, no pet.). Appellant has not pointed to any evidence that could have been presented during the punishment phase to prove his eligibility for probation or to mitigate his sentence.