The record is silent as to why appellant’s counsel failed to request a limiting instruction when the evidence was introduced and is therefore insufficient to overcome the presumption that counsel’s actions were part of a strategic plan. Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 714 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). In the absence of evidence concerning counsel’s reasons—or lack thereof—for his actions, we are unable to conclude that his performance was deficient under the first prong of the Strickland standard. See Jackson, 877 S.W.2d at 771. Moreover, trial counsel is not necessarily deficient for failing to request a limiting instruction on extraneous matters when the evidence is introduced. Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). In Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 104-05
holding that trial counsels failure to request a limiting instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance where counsel testified he did not want to draw more attention to the incriminating evidence holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy