With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". resulted in prejudice to the defense. Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (applying two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.E.2d 674 (1984)). Failure of defense counsel to inform a criminal defendant of plea offers made by the State is an omission that falls below an objective standard of professional reasonableness. Id. at 73-74 (failure of counsel to advise defendant of plea bargain offer by government constitutes “gross deviation from accepted professional standards”); see also United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1466 (9 th Cir.1994) (failure to communicate plea bargain offer constitutes unreasonable performance under prevailing professional standards); Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898, 902 (7 th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 937, 107 S.Ct. 416, 93

A: recognizing defense attorneys have duty to inform clients of plea agreements proffered by state and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance
B: holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims
C: holding that although we had previously held that an attorneys failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a conviction was not ineffective assistance actively misleading the client concerning these consequences was ineffective assistance
D: holding that criminal defense counsels failure to file notice of appeal when requested to do so is per se ineffective assistance
A.