in it”) (citations omitted; emphasis supplied); Chavero v. State, 36 S.W.3d 688, 701 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Wilson v. State, 15 S.W.3d 544, 550 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, pet. ref'd); Young, 10 S.W.3d at 716 n. 53 (Texarkana); Chavez v. State, 6 S.W.3d 66, 71 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd); Campbell v. State, 2 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 49 S.W.3d 874 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McCoy v. State, 996 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd); Ryan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd); Weeks v. State, 894 S.W.2d 390, 391, 392 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.); see also Blount v. State, 64 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet. h.) (designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Amendment Law Governing this Case
holding counsel deficient because she could have had no reasonable basis for not objecting to certain inadmissible evidence despite no evidence of 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 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 counsel could have reasonably determined that the trial court would not sustain a rule 403 objection therefore counsels failure to object to this evidence was not deficient performance holding counsel was not deficient in not objecting to testimony that was permissible within state rules of evidence