for appellant’s two offenses. According to appellant’s trial attorney, the offer was conveyed to appellant that day, while appellant was in court. The plea-bargain offer remained open until the next day, October 4, 2004, when appellant appeared in court and rejected the offer, which the State then withdrew. The October 4, 2002 reset form, which was signed by the Assistant District Attorney, appellant’s trial attorney and appellant, had a handwritten note stating, “[Defendant] rejected 15 yrs [sic] TDC [;] offer [is] withdrawn[.] State to file additional charges. 40 [sic] f the alleged error when the alleged grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel are not related to the plea of guilty. See id.; Jordan v. State, 112 S.W.3d 345, 347 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Our research has revealed that only one of
holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim holding that right to appeal claim of inef fective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel had disqualifying conflict of interest waived because record did not show that jordan would have pleaded not guilty but for alleged conflict of interest recognizing conflict recognizing the conflict holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal