Ex Parte Kriss Ray Camp, 03-16-00655-CR

In 1993 Kriss Ray Camp pleaded no contest in Tom Green County to Assault (Class A, family violence) and to Criminal Mischief (Class B) — written judgments and admonishments in the clerk’s record reflect convictions on August 5, 1993.
In 2011 Camp was tried in Potter County for family-violence assault; the State alleged the 1993 Tom Green family-violence conviction as a prior to elevate the offense to a felony and to apply habitual-offender enhancements.
Camp was convicted in Potter County and appealed; the Amarillo court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence of the prior sufficient.
In August 2016 Camp filed habeas applications in Tom Green County challenging the validity of the 1993 family-violence conviction, alleging the plea/judgment were fabricated or altered and that he had instead pled to criminal mischief and the assault was dismissed.
The Tom Green County court denied habeas relief; Camp appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, which reviewed whether Camp overcame the presumption of regularity attaching to the 1993 judgment and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1993 Tom Green family-violence conviction is void and may be collaterally attacked	Camp: the 1993 assault conviction is void because records were altered, he actually pled only to criminal mischief and the assault was dismissed	State/Trial Court: certified 1993 judgment and admonishments show Camp pled no contest and were presumed regular; Camp’s assertions alone are insufficient to rebut that presumption	Held: Judgment presumed regular; Camp failed to rebut with competent evidence; conviction not void for habeas purposes; habeas denied
Standard/burden for collateral attack on prior conviction used for enhancement	Camp: alleges conspiracy/fabrication of records — asserts actual innocence and defects in judgment	State/Trial Court: applicant bears burden by preponderance; presumption of regularity attaches to written judgment; applicant cannot rely solely on his testimony/unsupported assertions	Held: Applicant must produce competent evidence beyond his own assertion to overcome presumption; Camp did not meet burden; no abuse of discretion in denial

Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (article 11.09 scope includes restraint by conviction or collateral consequences)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for habeas rulings: abuse of discretion)
Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applicant bears burden to prove habeas claim by preponderance)
Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (formal judgment carries presumption of regularity; recitations binding absent direct proof of falsity)
Disheroon v. State, 687 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (appellant’s testimony alone insufficient to rebut presumption of regularity)
Guerrero v. State, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (presumption that recitations in written judgment are correct when attacking prior plea)
Ex parte Wilson, 716 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (defendant bears burden to overcome presumption of regularity)
Light v. State, 15 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (presumption of regularity of trial-court records and judgments)