in the conjunctive. See id.; see also Kitchens, 823 S.W.2d at 258. Defense counsel did not err by failing to object to the prosecutor’s jury argument or the jury charge. We overrule appellant’s second issue. III. Defense of Property In his third issue, appellant complains that his counsel did not request a defense of property instruction to be included in the jury charge on the ground that appellant was entitled to use force to retrieve his shoes from his girlfriend. Counsel’s strategy at trial was to claim appellant accidentally pushed his girlfriend in an attempt to retrieve his shoes. This strate unsel was deficient in failing to request an instruction on defense of property. See id.; see also Marlow v. State, 886 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ refd) (<HOLDING>). We overrule appellant’s third issue. IV.
holding defense counsel was not ineffective for choosing as matter of trial strategy to proceed with only one of several available theories of defense holding that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an entrapment defense that was legally available and where there was no other viable defense to present holding trial record affirmatively showed defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by purposefully eliciting testimony as to defendants remote prior conviction for a different offense where there could be no possible reasonable strategy because defendants credibility was crucial to his alibi defense holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity