In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00341-CR
MYRON OTHEN STILES, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 316th District Court
Hutchinson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11,876, Honorable James M. Mosley, Presiding
June 29, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Myron Othen Stiles, appeals his convictions for two counts of Indecency
with a Child by Sexual Contact. Through a single issue, appellant contends that his
counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s closing
arguments pertaining to bolstering and interjecting personal opinion. We affirm.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, the complaining party must show
not only that his counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard but
that he was prejudiced by that deficiency. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2002). Furthermore, to be prejudicial, the record must show that there exists a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. Id.
We note that aside from the conclusory statement that the defense counsel
“destroyed any chance of a fair trial,” appellant provided no substantive analysis
addressing how there existed a reasonable probability that the result would have differed
had the objections been made and sustained. And, while we may speculate on the
matter, the task is not ours to perform for him. So, even assuming arguendo that trial
counsel’s efforts were deficient (which we do not decide), appellant did not carry the
burden imposed upon him by Bone. See Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 345 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009) (holding that “by failing to explain how counsel’s allegedly unprofessional
errors would have changed the trial court’s finding of true on all three violations in the
State’s motion to adjudicate, the appellant failed to show that but for counsel’s deficiency
the result of the hearing to adjudicate guilt would have been different”); Ladd v. State, 3
S.W.3d 547, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (stating that the failure to prove the prejudice
prong bars relief).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.