Ex Parte Badih Ahmad Ahmad, 14-16-00542-CR

In 1987 Ahmad pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI (cause no. 0948654); judgment sentenced him to 60 days jail and $100 fine and recited he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel. No reporter’s record from 1987 is in the current file.
Nearly 30 years later Ahmad filed an Article 11.09 habeas application alleging the 1987 conviction was void because (1) he was not admonished as to the maximum range of punishment and (2) his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent; the 1987 judgment was being used as an enhancement in a pending felony DWI.
Ahmad submitted only his own affidavit claiming ignorance of the maximum punishment and that he would not have pled guilty if informed; he alleged threats by an unidentified court official.
The trial court held a hearing (no reporter’s record made), denied the habeas application, and issued no written findings. Ahmad appealed the denial.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, deferring to the trial court as factfinder and requiring Ahmad, as the collateral attacker, to overcome the presumption that the 1987 judgment’s recitals are correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1987 misdemeanor plea is void for lack of admonishment on maximum range of punishment	Ahmad: He was not admonished of the maximum term and would not have pled guilty if he had known	State: Article 26.13 admonishments apply to felonies, not misdemeanors; collateral attacker must produce evidence he was unaware of the range	Court: Denied — Article 26.13 does not apply; Ahmad failed to overcome presumption because his affidavit alone was insufficient to show he was unaware of the range
Whether Ahmad’s waiver of counsel in 1987 was not knowing and intelligent	Ahmad: Waiver invalid — group advisal, no written waiver, no inquiry into age/education/indigency, no admonition on self-representation	State: Judgment recites a valid waiver; Ahmad must rebut the recital with competent evidence; no writing required for waiver	Court: Denied — Ahmad failed to rebut the judgment’s recital; trial court could credit/discredit his affidavit and did not abuse discretion

State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (written-judgment recitals are presumptively correct; collateral attacker must rebut them with competent evidence)
Ex parte Martinez, 451 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (trial court in Article 11.09 proceedings is factfinder; appellate court defers to credibility determinations)
Disheroon v. State, 687 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (applicant’s testimony alone is insufficient to overturn a long-standing conviction)
Tatum v. State, 861 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (collateral attacker bears burden to show unawareness of punishment range; silent record does not automatically invalidate plea)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (on direct appeal, record must affirmatively show waiver of fundamental rights)