In Chapman v. State, Nos. 05-05-01349-CR, 05-05-00135-CR, 2007 WL 10560 (Tex. App.--Dallas Jan. 3, 2007, no pets.) the Dallas Court of Appeals found no prejudice even if it assumed defense counsel's failure to object to inadmissible extraneous-offense evidence offered during the punishment phase, because: "even without any testimony regarding extraneous offenses against Rodriguez and Gonzales, the State established appellant had an extensive record of offenses. . . . Accordingly, one need not resort to speculation about the effect of the extraneous victim impact testimony to explain the jury's assessment of maximum sentences in these cases." Thus, under Texas' discretionary non-capital punishment scheme, in order for an appellant to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel argument resulting from professional errors applicable to the sentencing phase where the jury determined the sentence, the record must demonstrate Strickland prejudice beyond mere conjecture and speculation.