An item may be either a deadly weapon per se, such as a firearm or explosive, or a deadly weapon in fact, due to the manner of its use. A pencil is not a deadly weapon per se. To justify a deadly weapon instruction, the State had to show that the pencil had both the inherent capacity to cause substantial bodily injury or death and that it was readily capable of causing such injury or death under the circumstances of its use. The circumstances of a weapon's use include the intent and ability of the user, the degree of force, the part of the body to which it was applied, and the actual injuries that were inflicted. Here, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the pencil, as wielded by Mr. Barragan, constituted a deadly weapon.
Expert testimony is unnecessary to prove the obvious fact that a pencil can put out an eye.
On the whole, the evidence is substantial that the pencil constituted a deadly weapon under the circumstances of its use. Mr. Barragan's final argument is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To successfully argue ineffectiveness, he must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that prejudice resulted from the deficiency. We strongly presume that counsel's conduct constituted sound trial strategy. Mr. Barragan cites four general areas of inadequate representation.