Ciminera, Dylan Bradley, PD-1552-15

Appellant Dylan Ciminera pled guilty to aggravated robbery—serious bodily injury and received admonishments about the 5–99 year punishment range.
There was no negotiated punishment recommendation; appellant filed for deferred adjudication before sentencing.
At plea and sentencing hearings the court told appellant deferred adjudication was a possibility but not promised; appellant acknowledged he understood and denied any promises.
After sentencing to seven years, appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance: counsel told him he likely would receive deferred adjudication and six months in jail, which induced the plea.
At the motion hearing both appellant and defense counsel testified; counsel denied promising deferred adjudication and described efforts on the presentence investigation.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding appellant failed to prove counsel provided erroneous advice that induced an involuntary plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial alleging counsel misinformed appellant about likely punishment, rendering his plea involuntary	Ciminera says counsel led him to reasonably believe he would receive deferred adjudication and six months in jail, so his plea was induced and involuntary	State and trial court point to plea admonishments and counsel's denial of any promise; record shows appellant understood deferred adjudication was not guaranteed	Affirmed: appellant failed to show counsel erroneously advised him (first Strickland prong); no involuntary plea shown, so denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brown v. State, 943 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (misinformation about probation can render plea involuntary if plea was actually induced)
Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (court should examine the record as a whole when determining plea voluntariness)
Smith v. State, 266 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for ruling on motions for new trial)