Cude v. State, 588 S.W.2d 895, 897-98 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (in armed robbery trial defense counsel’s repeated failure to object to inadmissible extraneous offense evidence of the (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (recognizing “inherently prejudicial” nature of extraneous offense evidence). This is particularly true when, as here, the defense strategy was based almost entirely on the defendant’s credibility versus the complainant’s credibility. Opening the door to otherwise inadmissible extraneous offense evidence that undermines the defendant’s character and credibility serves no purpose other than to prejudice the defendant’s ability to present his defense. Robertson, 187 S.W.3d at 484; Menchaca, 854 S.W.2d at 132-33; Stone v. State, 17 S.W.3d 348, 352-54 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because Garcia’s defense turned
holding trial record affirmatively showed defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by purposefully eliciting testimony as to defendants remote prior conviction for a different offense where there could be no possible reasonable strategy because defendants credibility was crucial to his alibi defense holding that where defense turned on defendants credibility there could be no strategic basis for allowing jury to hear defendant had prior conviction for same offense for which he was being tried and concluding counsel rendered ineffective assistance 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 that where defense depended on defendants credibility there was no possible reasonable strategy and defense counsel rendered deficient performance by intentionally eliciting and opening the door to otherwise inadmissible and clearly prejudicial evidence of defen dants current incarceration on two prior convictions one of which involved similar conduct to the charged offense during the guiltinnocence phase holding defense counsel was not ineffective for choosing as matter of trial strategy to proceed with only one of several available theories of defense