as required by the third prong of the test in Williams. We conclude the trial court did not erroneously admonish appellant; his plea therefore could not be involuntary on that basis. We overrule appellant’s first issue for review. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL In his second issue, appellant claims his plea was involuntary due to erroneous ad vice from trial counsel that he was eligible for deferred adjudication community supervision when he was in fact not eligible. Appellant believes such error amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we employ the standard of review set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). To reverse a conviction based on ineffective
holding strickland two prong test applies to ineffective assistance claims throughout trial including punishment recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury holding that pennsylvanias test for ineffective assistance of counsel is not contrary to strickland holding that the strickland test applies to claims  that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal