Mansfield, J., delivered the concurring opinion.
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N
I join the opinion of the majority, reversing the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding this cause for analysis under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (opinion on reh'g).
I would additionally order the court of appeals to determine whether the failure of trial
counsel to ask for the instruction as to the State's burden of proof as to extraneous offenses
introduced at the punishment phase of appellant's trial amounts to ineffective assistance of
counsel(1) to the extent that appellant is entitled to a new punishment hearing.
DELIVERED FEBRUARY 23, 2000
1. The standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), apply to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel whether at the guilt/innocence phase or the punishment phase of trial. See Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).