prejudiced appellant. Appellant similarly does not explain in his brief how he was prejudiced. Absent a record that elucidates trial counsel’s strategy, we are unable to assess whether appellant’s speedy trial claims had merit ánd, relatedly, whether ■ trial counsel’s decision not ■ to obtain a hearing and ruling on the motion raising such violations falls outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306, 313-14 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd) (presuming, in face of silent record, that trial counsel had valid strategic reason for failing to pursue speedy trial claim); see also Dean v. State, No. 12-03-00074-CR, 2004 WL 1486154, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler' June 30; 2004, pet. refd) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S.Ct. 2910,
holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel 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 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 an ambiguous or silent record will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that ineffective assistance claim based on failure to pursue speedy trial violation must fail where record silent as to counsels strategy