Robert Joseph Mangiafico, Jr. v. State, 05-13-01408-CR

Robert Joseph Mangiafico, Jr. entered open guilty pleas to first-degree theft and money laundering (each involving $200,000+), related to a securities fraud scheme targeting primarily elderly widows.
The trial court accepted the pleas and, after a punishment hearing with victim and other testimony, sentenced Mangiafico to concurrent 40-year prison terms and fines; he did not object to sentence at trial.
Before pleading, the court advised Mangiafico of the right not to testify; Mangiafico signed written plea papers waiving the right as to “guilt and punishment” and agreeing to testify.
At punishment-phase proceedings, the court discussed whether the State could inquire into unadjudicated bad acts if Mangiafico testified; the court told him he would not be compelled to testify and would limit State questioning to matters previously noticed.
Mangiafico testified at punishment and did not consult counsel before answering questions; he later appealed claiming (1) improper admonishment that he lost his Fifth Amendment right, (2) disproportionality of sentence, and (3) ineffective assistance because counsel allegedly promised a lower cap on punishment.
The court sua sponte corrected a clerical error in one judgment (changed plea notation to guilty) and affirmed the judgments as modified.

Issue	Mangiafico's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s admonishment that he waived the right not to testify rendered his plea involuntary	The admonishment implied he lost Fifth Amendment protection at punishment, so the plea was not knowingly/voluntarily made (relying on Carroll)	Waiver expressly included punishment in written plea; colloquy and judge’s later statements left decision to testify voluntary	Overruled — waiver valid; plea voluntary, and judge did not compel testimony
Whether the 40-year concurrent sentences are grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment)	Sentence is grossly disproportionate given alleged lesser role in multidefendant scheme	Defendant forfeited this complaint by not raising it at sentencing or in motion for new trial	Forfeited — claim not preserved; issue rejected
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly promising a cap of 25 years	Counsel told him he would not receive more than 25 years if he pled guilty (per Mangiafico’s pro se motion)	Allegation is unproven in the record; post-trial pro se claims are not evidence and counsel had no opportunity to respond	Overruled — defendant failed to meet Strickland burden; no hearing/evidence supports claim
Whether clerical error in judgment should be corrected	N/A (court noticed error)	N/A	Court modified judgment to reflect plea of guilty (Asberry authority)

Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (waiver of right against self-incrimination at plea does not automatically waive right at sentencing unless waiver sufficiently covers punishment)
Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (constitutional rights, including Eighth Amendment protections, may be waived)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Rouse v. State, 300 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (post-trial motions alleging constitutional error are not self-proving; allegations require evidentiary support at hearing)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial counsel should ordinarily be given opportunity to explain their actions before being deemed ineffective)
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate courts may correct clerical errors in judgments to make the record speak the truth)
Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (issues not raised at sentencing or in motion for new trial are forfeited)