sentences of 30 years in prison from the trial court. At the hearing on the motion for new trial conducted by the trial court after we abated the appeal, the trial court considered evidence in the form of affidavits from appellant, appellant’s trial attorney, and the State’s attorney. Appellant’s affidavit acknowledged that he received and rejected the 15-year plea-bargain offer on October 4, 2002. Appellant’s affidavit is silent concerning any events that may or may not have transpired on October 3, 2002, but asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective by not conveying the appellant’s accepted plea-bargain offer of 20 years in prison, to run concurrently, before November 15, 2002, when it was withdrawn and replaced with a new plea-ba 232 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Allegations of ineffective assistance of
holding that ramirez waived right to appeal because no nexus between failure to disclose medical evidence that allegedly violated brady and appellants plea of guilty holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding that brink waived right to appeal complaint that trial court erred by substituting his trial counsel because brink pleaded guilty two and a half months after substitutionofeounselruling and appellant showed no direct nexus between substitutionofcounselruling and appellants plea of guilty holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea