68,096-01 at 287-89. After describing the graphic and offensive nature of the defendants’ actions, the state habeas corpus court agreed with Thibodeaux that “a rationale jury would not have convicted [Schultze] of the lesser included offense of sexual assault.” Id. at 290 (emphasis in original). Based on these facts, which Schultze does not refute, the state habeas corpus court concluded further that Thibodeaux was not deficient for failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of sexual assault: 63. Counsel cannot be considered ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction for a lesser included offense which would either counteract the defensive theory or which would be damaging to [Schultze]. See Ex parte Ewing, 570 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (<HOLDING>). 64. When evidence against a defendant is
holding that trial strategy will be reviewed by appellate courts only if the record demonstrates that action was without any plausible basis holding that a trial courts hearsay ruling will be affirmed on any legal basis apparent in the record holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that a district courts factfindings must be upheld if plausible in light of the entire record holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record