Conrod Scott Chapa v. State, 407 S.W.3d 428

Appellant Conrad Scott Chapa pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child (age 14–17) and, after a presentence investigation hearing, was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
Before pleading guilty appellant signed admonishments explaining possible punishments and asked the court to assess punishment without a recommendation.
With new counsel, appellant filed a verified motion for new trial alleging plea counsel was ineffective and that his plea was therefore involuntary; the motion alleged counsel promised to seek deferred adjudication, failed to explain consequences, and failed to communicate a State plea offer.
Plea counsel submitted an affidavit disputing appellant’s allegations; the trial court denied the motion and refused a hearing.
On appeal appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying a hearing because his motion and verification showed reasonable grounds for relief under Strickland. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chapa)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a hearing on a motion for new trial was required on ineffective-assistance claims	Counsel misled Chapa about deferred adjudication and didn’t explain consequences, so plea was involuntary	Allegations are conclusory or refuted by record/admonishments and counsel affidavit	No hearing required; trial court did not abuse discretion
Failure to explain deferred adjudication consequences	Counsel didn’t explain what deferred adjudication for a sex offense entailed, so Chapa would not have pled	Admonishments and record informed appellant; allegation conclusory and not specific	Allegation conclusory; insufficient to mandate hearing
Erroneous optimism about likelihood of deferred adjudication	Counsel gave unrealistic expectation of receiving deferred adjudication, causing plea	Predictions (even if optimistic) are not ineffective absent impossibility or promise; no promise shown	No ineffective assistance; deferred adjudication was a permissible outcome, so no relief
Failure to convey a State plea offer	Counsel failed to inform Chapa of a 5-year offer; this deprived him of accepting a better deal	Chapa never asserts he would have accepted the offer; no prejudice shown	No prejudice shown; allegation insufficient to require a hearing

Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standards for hearing on motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (signed admonishments create prima facie showing plea was voluntary)
Ex parte Battle, 817 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (counsel’s advice ineffective where defendant was actually ineligible for probation)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (failure to convey plea offer can constitute prejudice if defendant likely would have accepted it)
Martinez v. State, 74 S.W.3d 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (new-trial hearing required where defendant avers he would have accepted known plea deal)