Mims, Jonathan Austin, WR-77,257-02

Applicant Jonathan A. Mims was indicted for sexual assault of a child and entered a plea bargain resulting in a five-year TDCJ-CID sentence after pleading nolo contendere; he waived direct appeal as part of the plea.
Applicant asserts he pled nolo contendere based on trial counsel Rick Brass’s erroneous advice that such a plea was not an admission of guilt and would avoid sex-offender registration.
Applicant contends his plea was therefore not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Additional deficiencies alleged: counsel failed to (a) explain the legal effect of nolo contendere, (b) pursue or disclose DNA testing results, and (c) interview/subpoena a favorable witness, Kendryan Lee.
Applicant previously filed an 11.07 writ that was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals as non-compliant; this filing is a pro se reply to the State’s answer to his second application and asks in the alternative for remand to obtain a fresh counsel affidavit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of plea (nolo contendere)	Mims: counsel misdefined nolo contendere, leading Mims to believe he would not be admitting guilt or have to register as a sex offender; plea thus involuntary	State: (in Answer) argues prior record/affidavits from counsel rebut allegations and recommends denial	Not yet adjudicated in this brief; applicant seeks habeas relief or remand for further fact‑finding
Ineffective assistance of counsel — advice re plea	Mims: Brass’s advice fell below Strickland standard and prejudiced decision to accept plea; had he known true consequences he would have gone to trial	State: relies on counsel affidavit asserting reasonable strategic choices; urges denial	Not yet adjudicated; applicant requests relief/remand for new affidavit and fact development
Failure to test or use DNA evidence	Mims: counsel failed to ensure DNA testing of SANE kit or to disclose testing, prejudicing defense	State: characterizes any handling of DNA as strategic and relies on counsel’s statements	Not yet adjudicated; applicant contends prejudice and requests investigation
Failure to interview/call favorable witness (Kendryan Lee)	Mims: counsel coerced him into not pursuing the witness and failed to investigate; this was deficient	State: points to counsel’s affidavit and strategic choices supporting denial	Not yet adjudicated; applicant alleges prejudice and asks court to remand for development

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (counsel’s advice can render a guilty plea involuntary under Strickland analysis)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (right to effective assistance of counsel applies to plea situations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte Maldanado, 688 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (applicant bears burden to allege and prove facts entitling him to post‑conviction relief)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (applicant must prove grounds by a preponderance)
Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (sworn allegations alone insufficient proof)
Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (guilty plea not knowing/voluntary if result of ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Battle, 817 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (erroneous advice of counsel can render plea involuntary)
Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Strickland standard applies to pleas)