is inconsistent with asserting a defense of property. Section 9.41 of the Penal Code allows [a] person unlawfully dispossessed of ... tangible, moveable property by another [to use] force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to ... recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and ... reasonably believes the other had no claim of light when he dispossessed the actor[.] Tex. Penal Code § 9.41(b)(1). Defense of property, therefore, involves an intentional use of force to recover one’s property, whereas counsel’s argument that appellant accidentally pushed his girlfriend centers on a lack of intent. See Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125, 133-34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Appellant has not established that his trial
holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one holding that counsel was not deficient for failing to make an objection that lacked merit holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding trial counsel was not deficient in failing to request instruction on self defense when his strategy was to argue the complainant was accidentally injured holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy