Eric Robert Kendrick v. The State of Texas, 06-26-00040-CR, August 31, 2026.
On appeal from 336th District Court, Fannin County, Texas
Synopsis
On a silent appellate record, a defendant ordinarily cannot establish deficient performance under Strickland based on trial counsel’s failure to object to extraneous-offense evidence that was at least arguably admissible under Article 38.371 and Rule 404(b). Unless the record affirmatively shows why counsel failed to object, or the omission was so indefensible that no competent lawyer could have made it, reviewing courts will presume a plausible trial strategy and reject the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
This is a criminal case, but it has real procedural crossover for Texas family-law litigators because the lesson is appellate, not substantive: if the record does not preserve the reason a lawyer acted or failed to act, later complaints about deficient performance are usually dead on arrival. In divorce, SAPCR, modification, enforcement, and protective-order litigation, that principle matters whenever counsel elects not to object to relationship evidence, prior-acts evidence, hearsay, expert methodology, or scope-of-cross issues. The case is also useful where a family-law record includes evidence admitted under a “relationship context” rationale; if the losing party later tries to frame the issue as ineffective assistance in a quasi-criminal or liberty-adjacent setting, the absence of a developed record will usually control the outcome.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Kendrick was tried for continued sexual abuse of a child. The State gave pretrial notice that it intended to offer extraneous-offense evidence involving two of the complainant’s sisters. One sister was a child at the time of the alleged conduct, and the other was an adult. As to the adult sister, the State invoked Article 38.371, arguing that the testimony was admissible as family-relationship evidence, and also argued Rule 404(b) grounds such as motive and intent.
The trial court conducted a pretrial Article 38.371 hearing. At that hearing, the adult sister testified that Kendrick had sexually abused her repeatedly after she turned eighteen, describing recurring nighttime assaults and manipulative conduct. She also testified about the timing of her disclosure and the complainant’s later outcry. Defense counsel cross-examined her but expressly stated he had no objection to the testimony.
On direct appeal, Kendrick argued that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to that extraneous-offense evidence. He also challenged the jury charge, but the opinion’s more significant crossover point is the ineffective-assistance analysis on a silent record.
Issues Decided
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to extraneous-offense evidence offered under Article 38.371 and Rule 404(b).
- Whether, on a silent appellate record, the defendant could satisfy Strickland’s deficiency prong when a reasonable trial strategy could be imagined.
- Whether the jury charge erroneously omitted a not-guilty option as to the lesser-included offense and, if so, whether the error caused egregious harm.
Rules Applied
The court relied on the familiar ineffective-assistance framework from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and Texas authorities applying it on direct appeal, especially the presumption that counsel acted reasonably unless the record shows otherwise. The opinion specifically invoked Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), for the strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance, and Tanner v. State, 707 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024), for the two-prong structure and the appellant’s burden.
The court also applied the silent-record principle reflected in cases such as Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007): when the record does not reveal why counsel acted as he did, appellate courts ordinarily will not find deficiency if any plausible strategic reason can be conceived.
On admissibility, the court discussed Article 38.371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows relevant relationship evidence in prosecutions involving persons in relationships described by specified Family Code sections, while expressly preserving the Rules of Evidence and prohibiting otherwise inadmissible character evidence. The court also discussed Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b), under which extraneous-act evidence may be admissible for non-character purposes such as motive or intent, and Texas Rule of Evidence 403, including the balancing framework from Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Application
The court did not hold that every objection to the challenged testimony would necessarily have failed. Its narrower point was that, on this record, appellate counsel could not prove deficient performance because trial counsel’s reasons were undeveloped and at least one reasonable strategy was apparent.
The court walked through several plausible bases for declining to object. First, counsel could reasonably have concluded that the trial court would admit the testimony under Article 38.371 because the case involved qualifying family relationships and the evidence arguably supplied relevant context bearing on whether the charged conduct occurred. Second, counsel could have believed the testimony fit a permissible Rule 404(b) purpose, including motive or intent, rather than pure character conformity. Third, counsel could have assessed Rule 403 and concluded that the probative value would likely survive balancing, particularly given the State’s need for contextual evidence in a child-sexual-abuse prosecution without physical evidence or eyewitness corroboration.
The court also noted the presence of a limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the evidence only for restricted purposes and not as conformity evidence. That mattered because it reinforced the notion that counsel may have concluded an objection would be overruled or would add little while highlighting damaging testimony. In other words, the opinion is fundamentally about appellate restraint: where the record permits a strategic explanation, the deficiency prong fails.
Holding
The court held that Kendrick could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because the record was silent as to why trial counsel chose not to object to the extraneous-offense evidence. Given Article 38.371, Rule 404(b), and Rule 403, the court could conceive of reasonable strategic grounds for the omission, and that was enough to defeat the deficiency prong under Strickland on this record.
The court also held that Kendrick was not entitled to reversal on his jury-charge complaint because he failed to show egregious harm. The judgment was therefore affirmed.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, the real value of this decision is not the criminal evidentiary statute itself but the appellate architecture around undeveloped records. In Texas family practice, lawyers routinely make tactical calls about whether to object to evidence concerning prior family interactions, prior incidents between household members, the course of the relationship, outcries to third parties, digital communications, or surrounding circumstances offered to explain a child’s statements or a parent’s conduct. If the case later produces an ineffective-assistance-style complaint in a proceeding where such a claim is cognizable, or a broader appellate complaint about preservation and trial management, this opinion underscores that reviewing courts are reluctant to second-guess unelaborated trial decisions.
There is also a more direct evidentiary lesson. Family courts frequently confront “relationship evidence” offered to explain dynamics, access, disclosure timing, fear, control, or decision-making within a household. Even when a family-law analogue is not governed by Article 38.371, the same structural fight appears under Rules 401, 403, and 404(b): is the evidence genuinely contextual and tied to a material issue, or is it inadmissible propensity proof dressed up as background? This case reminds practitioners that if you want to challenge that kind of evidence effectively on appeal, you must do more than argue after the fact that counsel should have objected. You need a record that crystallizes the evidentiary basis, the objection, the ruling, and—if later relevant—the reason counsel acted as counsel did.
Practically, that means two things. Trial lawyers should make deliberate records when evidence is admitted under a relationship-context theory. Appellate lawyers should be realistic about direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims when no motion for new trial was used to develop counsel’s rationale. In many family cases, especially those with accelerated timelines or emergency orders, the temptation is to move fast and leave strategy unexplained. This opinion is a reminder that silence usually favors affirmance.
Checklists
Preserving Evidentiary Error in Family-Relationship Cases
- Identify the precise theory of admissibility being asserted: relevance, context, state of mind, notice, intent, or another non-character purpose.
- Require the proponent to articulate the rule-based basis for admission on the record.
- Distinguish between true contextual evidence and impermissible character-conformity evidence.
- Make a Rule 401 objection if the link to a material fact is attenuated.
- Make a Rule 404(b) objection if the evidence is functionally propensity evidence.
- Make a Rule 403 objection and request an express balancing analysis when prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- Request a limiting instruction at the time of admission and again in the charge when appropriate.
- Obtain a clear ruling.
- If evidence is excluded, make an offer of proof; if admitted over objection, ensure the substance and grounds are fully reflected in the reporter’s record.
Avoiding Silent-Record Problems for Appeal
- Use a motion for new trial when post-judgment strategy decisions may matter on appeal.
- Develop trial counsel’s rationale through affidavit or hearing testimony if ineffective assistance could become an appellate issue.
- Avoid relying on a bare appellate record to prove deficiency unless the conduct is truly indefensible on its face.
- Tie each challenged omission to a specific rule, objection, and likely outcome had the objection been made.
- Preserve emails, hearing notes, and witness outlines that may explain strategic decisions if later needed.
- Remember that appellate courts will presume a reasonable strategy if one can be imagined from the record.
Responding to “Relationship Context” Evidence in SAPCR or Protective-Order Litigation
- Force the proponent to explain how the evidence bears on a live issue such as conservatorship, possession, safety measures, credibility, or best interest.
- Separate admissible household-context evidence from inadmissible proof offered only to suggest conduct in conformity with past acts.
- Ask whether less prejudicial proof can supply the same context.
- Request tailored limiting instructions rather than broad, abstract ones.
- Object when the proffer becomes cumulative or threatens to turn the hearing into a mini-trial on collateral events.
- Reurge Rule 403 if the proof expands beyond the initial proffer.
Appellate Framing After an Unpreserved or Underdeveloped Trial Record
- Evaluate whether the complaint is really about evidentiary error, preservation, judicial discretion, or alleged ineffective assistance.
- Do not overstate a direct-appeal IAC argument where the record is undeveloped.
- Consider whether the better argument is harmful evidentiary error, if preserved, rather than deficient performance.
- Explain why no plausible strategy fits the record if an IAC claim must be raised.
- Address both Strickland prongs; do not assume prejudice will substitute for deficiency.
- Be candid about the standard of review and the strong presumption favoring counsel’s competence.
Family Law Crossover
The procedural rule with crossover significance is straightforward: when the appellate record is silent about counsel’s reason for not objecting, a reviewing court will ordinarily presume a reasonable strategy and reject an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal unless the omission was so extreme that no competent attorney would have made it. In Texas family law, that mechanism can arise in proceedings where ineffective-assistance review is available or argued by analogy—most commonly in termination cases and occasionally in other liberty-sensitive matters—after counsel fails to object to evidence framed as relationship context, prior-acts evidence, hearsay, or other extrinsic proof. The case therefore reinforces a record-building procedure: if counsel’s reasoning may later matter, it must be developed through objection practice at trial and, when necessary, through a motion for new trial or other post-judgment record-making vehicle. Without that development, appellate courts generally will not infer deficiency from silence.
Citation
Eric Robert Kendrick v. State of Texas, No. 06-26-00040-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 31, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~c6cded3a-c02b-4082-a8c2-183ed9928fd0~~
Share this content: