counsel do not show that he was deficient. See McFarland, 845 S.W.2d at 843 (noting isolated omissions in record do not render counsel’s performance ineffective). Failures to Object. Appellant finally complains that his counsel did not object to leading questions regarding the elements of misdemeanor assault or to hearsay regarding testimony elicited from one of the officers at trial. These failures to object to potentially inadmissible testimony are not sufficient, in themselves, to constitute deficient performance. See Ingham v. State, 679 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (“An isolated failure to object to certain procedural mistakes or improper evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”); see also Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellant was required to provide
holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that it is the appellants burden to present a record to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial courts findings holding that ineffective assistance claim based on failure to pursue speedy trial violation must fail where record silent as to counsels strategy holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy holding presumption of strategy not rebutted when record was silent as to why appellants trial counsel failed to object to the states persistent attempts to elicit inadmissible hearsay