of Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a) applicable here. Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521, 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The State contends that the extraneous offense is admissible in a pre-sentence investigation report under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, sectio —Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (same). In conducting the harm analysis Duffy requires, we are governed by the standard set forth in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 586, d for ineffective assistance of counsel where an attorney failed to object to inadmissible extraneous offenses contained in a pre-sentence investigation report. Thomas v. State, No. 01-94-00703-CR, — S.W.2d - [1995 WL 489100] (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] August 17, 1995, no pet.). See also Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85, 89-90 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Appellate courts formerly presumed that in a
holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to unadjudicated extraneous offenses in a psi report