Did the Court of Criminal Appeals err in finding that trial counsel's errors did not amount to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Mr. Santana was convicted for aggravated assault after allegedly striking his girlfriend’s daughter in the head with a hickory stick. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. During trial, his attorneys opened the door to a tidal wave of prior bad act evidence that would not have otherwise been admissible. They also failed to object to other inadmissible prior bad act evidence, and failed to request a limiting instruction related to all of the prior bad act evidence. Counsel even had a limiting instruction removed from the jury charge, and also failed to object to inadmissible hearsay and bolstering evidence. We know the jury considered the prior bad act evidence because the jury, which had been deadlocked in favor of a not guilty verdict, requested a jury readback of this harmful evidence. Defense counsel also failed to object to this improper jury readback. Shortly after the jury was read this testimony, they returned a verdict of guilty. In post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Santana alleged his trial counsel were ineffective. The lead trial attorney did not offer any strategic reasons for his failures. The state district court found that counsel was ineffective, but the Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. Question Presented: Did the Court of Criminal Appeals err in finding that trial counsel’s errors did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel?