Robert Joseph Mangiafico, Jr. v. State
05-13-01407-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015Background
- Robert J. Mangiafico, Jr. entered open guilty pleas to first-degree theft and money laundering involving $200,000+ in a securities-fraud scheme targeting mostly elderly widows.
- The trial court accepted the pleas, conducted the usual admonishments and colloquy, and admitted signed plea paperwork in which Mangiafico waived the right to remain silent as to "guilt and punishment" and agreed to testify.
- The State presented witness testimony over two days, including victims and evidence of prior felony convictions and other bad acts.
- Defense announced at sentencing that Mangiafico had agreed to testify; the trial judge told him he was not compelled to testify, would not allow the State to probe unnotified bad acts if Mangiafico testified, and that Mangiafico could consult counsel before incriminating answers.
- Mangiafico testified at punishment without consulting counsel and the court assessed concurrent 40-year prison terms.
- On appeal Mangiafico raised three issues: (1) improper admonishment that he "lost" his Fifth Amendment right after pleading guilty, (2) cruel-and-unusual (grossly disproportionate) punishment, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged promise of a 25-year cap. The appellate court also corrected the judgment to reflect a guilty plea in one cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mangiafico) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court s admonishment that he waived his Fifth Amendment right rendered plea involuntary | Court told he "lost" right not to testify at sentencing; plea waiver insufficient for punishment-phase silence; plea involuntary under Carroll | Waiver expressly included "guilt and punishment," signed and explained; judge did not compel testimony and limited State's inquiry | Overruled. Waiver covered punishment; colloquy and plea paperwork show knowing, voluntary waiver; judge did not coerce testimony |
| Whether 40-year concurrent sentences are grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment) | Sentence grossly disproportionate given group scheme and allegedly lesser culpability | Defendant waived this complaint by failing to object at sentencing or in motion for new trial | Overruled (forfeited). Complaint forfeited for failure to preserve error |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for allegedly promising no more than 25 years | Counsel told him plea would result in no more than 25 years, inducing plea; prejudice from longer sentence | Sworn pro se motion is not evidence; no hearing or evidence supporting the claim; counsel had no opportunity to respond | Overruled. No evidentiary support in record; Strickland claim not proven; counsel not afforded chance to explain |
| Whether trial court judgment accurately reflected plea in Cause No. 380-80747-2011 | N/A | N/A | Modified judgment to reflect a plea of guilty (court-corrected clerical error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (right against self-incrimination continues at sentencing; waiver at guilt phase may not waive at punishment)
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (constitutional rights may be waived)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Rouse v. State, 300 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (post-trial motions are not self-proving; allegations require evidentiary hearing)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate court authority to correct judgments to make record speak the truth)