Geoffrey Powers v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00364-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00364-CR

Geoffrey Powers, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 87th District Court of Freestone County, Texas Judge Amy Thomas Ward, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 22-175CR

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Geoffrey Powers was convicted of indecency with a child and sentenced

to 8 years in prison. In his sole issue on appeal, he asserts his trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

After her parents noticed behavioral and emotional changes in her,

J.N.C. disclosed that Powers had inappropriately touched her. At trial, after

the State concluded its voir dire, the State asked the jury panel if anyone had a question. One panel member asked the age of the victim. The State

responded that the victim was 9 years old or “between nine and ten-ish” at the

time of the offense. During his voir dire, defense counsel asked the same panel

member if the panel member was shaking his head after hearing the victim’s

age. The panel member denied shaking his head and confirmed that he would

be fair and impartial knowing the victim’s age. The panel member was

ultimately peremptorily struck by defense counsel and did not serve on the

jury. No other panel members were asked about or commented on their

feelings regarding the victim’s age.

In his sole issue, Powers claims that his counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because he failed to object to the State’s response regarding the age

of the victim. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be firmly rooted

in the record. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

"Under most circumstances, the record on direct appeal will not be sufficient

to show that counsel's representation was so deficient and so lacking in tactical

or strategic decision-making as to overcome the strong presumption that

counsel's conduct was reasonable and professional." Scheanette v. State, 144

S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, trial counsel should generally

be given an opportunity to explain his actions before being found ineffective.

Johnson v. State, 624 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Rylander v.

Powers v. State Page 2 State, 101 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

“A silent record that provides no explanation for counsel's actions will

not overcome the strong presumption of reasonable assistance.” Johnson, 624

S.W.3d at 586; Rylander, 101 S.W.3d at 110-11; Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814.

“Thus, if the record does not contain affirmative evidence of trial counsel's

reasoning or strategy, we presume counsel's performance was not deficient.”

Johnson, 624 S.W.3d at 586; see Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002).

Although Powers filed a motion for new trial alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel and a hearing was held on that motion, his trial counsel

did not testify, and no affidavit from trial counsel was admitted into evidence.

Thus, the record is silent as to why trial counsel did not object to the State’s

response.

Accordingly, we presume counsel's performance was not deficient, and

Powers’ sole issue is overruled.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

LEE HARRIS Justice

Powers v. State Page 3 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 20, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

Powers v. State Page 4