supervision from the court for a § 3g offense, which can never constitute a legitimate or reasonable strategic decision. Canedo, 818 S.W.2d at 815; Gallegos, 756 5.W.2d at 48. Further, as to the second and fourth Reeer elements, Garcia’s consistent desire to receive community supervision is affirmatively shown by the record, both before and after his jury waiver. The record shows that Garcia was actively seeking community supervision and was eligible to receive it, having timely filed a sworn written application for community supervision and presented evidence of his lack of prior felony convictions through his wife’s testimony at trial. Cf., Pivral v. State, No. 04-08-00489-CR, 2009 WL 2045309, at *3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio July 15, 2009, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). Further, as evidenced by the record, Garcia’s
recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding that even if counsels performance in advising defendant to elect punishment by the court was deficient he failed to show prejudice because he had not filed a sworn motion for community supervision holding that the defendant could not show deficient performance if the evidence the defendant claims counsel should have sought to exclude was admissible holding that a defendant must show prejudice resulting from counsels deficient performance to prevail on an ineffectiveassistance claim holding that where counsels deficient performance resulted in structural error prejudice will be presumed