James Jerome Nastoupil v. State, 13-14-00480-CR

James Nastoupil pled nolo contendere to indecency with a child (sexual contact) and stipulated the indictment's allegations were true.
After plea and admonition, the court recessed; the next day the State presented ten witnesses in a single proceeding covering both guilt and punishment.
Trial was to the court (defendant waived jury), and counsel retained cross-examination rights.
The trial court found Nastoupil guilty and sentenced him to 18 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, Nastoupil asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object when punishment-related testimony was admitted during the guilt/innocence phase.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to punishment evidence introduced during guilt/innocence after a nolo contendere plea	Nastoupil: counsel unreasonably failed to object to inadmissible punishment testimony during the guilt phase, satisfying Strickland	State: bifurcated trials are not required when defendant waives jury and pleads guilty or nolo contendere; presentation of guilt and punishment together was proper	Court held counsel was not ineffective—no duty to object because unitary trial was proper; first Strickland prong not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (bifurcation applies to not-guilty jury trials)
Saldana v. State, 150 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (waiver of jury and plea of guilty/nolo bars bifurcation)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defining reasonable probability standard)
Wert v. State, 383 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (applying Strickland standards)