Cody Bright v. State, 05-13-00998-CR

Cody Bright was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for threatening his parents and his girlfriend (Brandi) during a confrontation; a 9-1-1 recording and statements by the parents implicated a knife.
Bright initially pleaded not guilty but later entered open pleas of guilty; at the plea hearing Bright and his parents denied he used a knife (Bright described a kitchen utensil).
The trial court accepted the guilty pleas and sentenced Bright to eight years’ imprisonment in each case.
Bright filed a motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) advising him to plead guilty despite insufficient evidence of a knife and (2) failing to call Brandi at the plea hearing; at the new-trial hearing Brandi testified she would have denied use of a knife.
Trial counsel testified he attempted to have Brandi present, proceeded because the parents’ testimony was central, and advised pleas based on a strategy to obtain probation/rehabilitation given the judge’s tendencies and a favorable presentence evaluation.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the judgments to correct the deadly-weapon finding from "firearm" to "knife."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Brandi at plea hearing	Bright: Brandi would have minimized the assaults and denied knife use, providing mitigation	State/Trial counsel: Counsel tried to have Brandi present; relied on parents’ statements and a strategy favoring plea/probation	Denied — no prejudice shown; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether counsel was ineffective in advising guilty pleas given alleged lack of evidence of a knife	Bright: Counsel’s advice led to guilty pleas despite weak proof of deadly weapon	Trial counsel: Pleas were strategic to obtain rehabilitation/probation; judge asked Bright if he wanted to persist after denials and Bright did	Denied — Bright failed to show he would have insisted on trial; no reasonable probability result would differ

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires showing defendant would have gone to trial)
Lopez v. State, 343 S.W.3d 137 (Texas standard discussion of Strickland)
Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (guilty-plea prejudice analysis)
Riley v. State, 378 S.W.3d 453 (standard for appellate review of denial of new trial based on ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856 (considering plea circumstances when assessing prejudice)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (appellate authority to modify incorrect judgments)