Ex Parte Ray Louis Johnson, Jr., 06-14-00214-CR

On Oct. 30–31, 2003, Ray Louis Johnson, Jr. underwent oral surgery and was prescribed hydrocodone (10 mg q4h) and promethazine per Dr. Rehnquist’s instructions.
The next morning Johnson appeared in Hopkins County court for a bench trial on aggravated sexual assault of a child and pleaded guilty; the trial judge and defense counsel executed written plea admonishments and deferred adjudication probation was imposed.
Judge Newsom observed signs of impairment and asked counsel if Johnson was "alright;" Johnson volunteered his recent oral surgery and medication use.
Johnson was later adjudicated guilty in Feb. 2005 and sentenced to 40 years after a motion to proceed with adjudication; he has since repeatedly challenged the voluntariness/competency of his 2003 plea.
In May 2014 Johnson filed an art. 11.072 habeas application asserting his plea was not competent because he was under the influence of legally prescribed controlled substances; he also alleged ineffective assistance by trial counsel.
The 62nd District Court (Judge Biard) denied relief on Nov. 17, 2014, issuing findings that Johnson and counsel had affirmed competency in the written plea papers, the original trial judge was best positioned to assess competency, and Johnson was competent when he pled; the trial court’s decision was made after "reviewing the files" without an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing an evidentiary hearing on Johnson's claim that his Oct. 31, 2003 guilty plea was involuntary/invalid because he was under the influence of prescribed hydrocodone	Johnson: his plea was not made competently because he was actively taking hydrocodone/promethazine per a health‑care provider and thus could not knowingly and voluntarily enter the plea; an evidentiary hearing was required to evaluate impairment	State/Trial Court: plea papers, counsel’s affirmative representation, and the original judge’s on‑the‑record acceptance support a finding of competency; Johnson did not timely raise competency and the court properly reviewed the file and denied relief	Trial court denied relief and found Johnson competent at plea based on the files and written plea admonishments; applicant seeks reversal and remand for a full evidentiary hearing (appellate standard: abuse of discretion)

Avery v. State, 359 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses controlled substances and competency issues)
Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (permits post‑conviction challenges to voluntariness of plea)
Forrest v. State, 805 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standards relating to trial court discretion)
State v. Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion framework and reliance on record)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (defines abuse of discretion as action without reference to guiding rules or principles)