Background
John Henry Castillo was confined in the Bexar County Jail and placed in an emergency restraint chair on March 20, 2024, due to disruptive behavior. While restrained with shoulder straps, lap belt, forearm and leg straps, and a mesh transport hood, Castillo acted aggressively, threatened officers, refused to comply with commands, and bit BCSO Corporal Michael Robles through the hood. Castillo was indicted for assault on a public servant, a third-degree felony. On June 20, 2025, a jury found him guilty. After the court found two prior felony convictions true, establishing habitual felony offender status, the trial court sentenced Castillo to thirty years imprisonment.
On appeal, Castillo claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present two pieces of evidence during the guilt-innocence phase: testimony from BCSO Sergeant Rosalinda Yanez and Castillo’s own testimony, both allegedly supporting a self-defense claim. He also argued counsel should have requested a self-defense jury instruction. Castillo contended the officers used unlawful force when they placed him in restraints and the mesh hood.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed Castillo’s conviction and sentence, rejecting the ineffective assistance claim. To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The court found Castillo failed to establish deficiency on either theory.
Regarding witness testimony: Castillo failed to show that Sergeant Yanez was available to testify at trial. Her testimony appeared only in a bench conference two days before trial commenced; no record evidence established her availability on June 20, 2025. Regarding Castillo’s own testimony, the record contained no evidence he wanted to testify during guilt-innocence. When counsel asked at the punishment hearing if Castillo “thought not to testify at trial,” Castillo responded affirmatively. Castillo’s later disappointment with trial strategy does not constitute ineffective assistance.
Regarding the self-defense instruction: The court held that self-defense was not “raised by the evidence” because the officers’ use of force was lawful under Texas Penal Code § 9.53, which justifies correctional officers’ use of reasonable force to maintain facility security. The evidence showed Castillo’s aggressive behavior, threats, non-compliance, and biting precipitated the officers’ actions. Because self-defense cannot be invoked against lawful force, Castillo was not entitled to a self-defense instruction, and counsel was not deficient for failing to request one.
Key Takeaways
- Ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal face a steep burden because courts presume counsel’s conduct was strategic unless “so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in it,” and the record must clearly explain counsel’s reasoning.
- A defendant claiming ineffective assistance must prove both deficient performance and prejudice; failure on either prong defeats the claim.
- Trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to present evidence outside the guilt-innocence phase or failing to call witnesses whose availability is not established.
- Correctional officers’ use of reasonable, justified force under § 9.53 is lawful force; inmates cannot claim self-defense against it, and courts need not instruct juries on self-defense when no evidence of unlawful force exists.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces significant protections for correctional staff and clarifies self-defense doctrine in jail settings. By holding that § 9.53 justified force is categorically lawful, the court eliminates self-defense as a viable theory when officers act within their statutory authority to maintain security. This protects officers from self-defense claims arising from routine custodial restraint and control, even when inmates allege mistreatment.
The decision also establishes practical roadblocks for ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal: appellants cannot rely on evidence outside the guilt-innocence record, must affirmatively show witness availability, and bear the burden to overcome the presumption of strategic decision-making. By requiring clear record evidence of counsel’s reasoning, the opinion channels such claims to habeas corpus proceedings, where the record is more fully developed and counsel can be questioned directly. This approach reduces the number of ineffective assistance claims that succeed on direct appeal and protects finality of jury verdicts.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.