Salinas was originally placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in September 2017 for burglary of a habitation, a first-degree felony. When the state moved to revoke her supervision in February 2023, she entered into a new plea agreement that required her to complete a nine-month substance abuse treatment program. The dispute centered on whether she agreed to attend the Journey Recovery Center (JRC) program or the more intensive Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) program.
The appeals court found that Salinas failed to prove her ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland standard. As Chief Justice Tijerina wrote, 'Based on the evidence presented, the trial court could have reasonably disbelieved appellant's testimony that her trial counsel misinformed her and believed that she knew about the program she agreed to attend.' The court emphasized that Salinas signed the December 1, 2023 order that 'clearly indicates that she was required to attend the SAFT program' for 'a minimum of 9 months and not to exceed 2 years.'
The court was particularly skeptical of Salinas' claim that she didn't understand what she was signing. Chief Justice Tijerina noted that Salinas 'signed the December 1, 2023 order acknowledging that she received a copy of the community supervision conditions, she was informed of her right to contest the modifications of community supervision, and she gave her consent to the modifications.' When pressed on cross-examination, Salinas admitted she 'had not read the December 1, 2023 order and just signed it anyway.'
The case originated from Salinas' failure to report to the Tom Green County Jail on December 3, 2023, as required by her modified supervision terms. Unit supervisor William Monpere testified that when he contacted Salinas about reporting, 'she let me know that she thought she was going to JRC.' When Monpere explained that wasn't what she had signed for, telling her 'You had signed for the SATF program,' Salinas 'hung up on [him].' The trial court ultimately revoked her supervision and sentenced her to twelve years in prison.
Salinas argued that her previous counsel told her the program was only '30 days' and failed to inform her it was actually a nine-month commitment. However, the appeals court noted that both programs had progression requirements - Monpere testified that after completing JRC and still struggling with methamphetamine abuse, Salinas completed another program and 'relapsed again,' making 'the next step in progressive sanctions would be the SAFT program.'
The court applied established precedent requiring that ineffective assistance claims be 'affirmatively supported by the record.' Chief Justice Tijerina concluded that 'appellant has not overcome the presumption that counsel provided reasonable assistance,' citing the clear documentary evidence that contradicted Salinas' version of events. The opinion emphasized that trial courts are in the best position to evaluate credibility during revocation hearings.