Johnson, Jimmie, PD-1632-14

Background

Jimmie Johnson was charged with aggravated robbery (Radio Shack gunpoint robbery) and burglary of a habitation (bicycle theft). He pleaded guilty to both offenses; the trial court accepted the pleas and assessed punishment of 45 years (aggravated robbery) and 20 years (burglary), to run concurrently.
At the aggravated-robbery trial Johnson initially pleaded not guilty, had a competency evaluation finding him competent, then changed his plea to guilty during trial; he also pleaded guilty to the separate burglary case.
Johnson later mailed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas ten days after sentencing, asserting his pleas were involuntary because he was mentally incompetent, acting under addiction/medication, and had a conflict with counsel.
The trial court did not rule on the motions, so they were overruled by operation of law; the First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Johnson failed to show he timely presented the motions to the trial court and (2) the record supported a prima facie showing of a knowing, voluntary plea (including admonishments and a prior competency finding).
The central legal question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing withdrawal of the pleas when Johnson claimed incompetence and involuntariness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion in refusing to allow withdrawal of guilty pleas after judgment	Pleas were involuntary; Johnson was not mentally competent, was medicated/addicted, and pleaded without sufficient awareness; trial moved too fast	Johnson failed to timely present motions to the court; record contains admonishments, counsel and appellant attested to voluntariness, and a recent competency evaluation found him competent	Court of Appeals: No abuse of discretion. Motions were not shown to be timely presented; record supports prima facie voluntariness and competency, so overruled by operation of law
Whether a post-judgment motion to withdraw plea must be "presented" within 10 days to trigger relief	Presentment requirement satisfied by filing and mailing to court	Must actually bring motion to court's attention within 10 days (Rule 21.6); mere filing insufficient	Court: Presentment lacking in record (no judge signature, docket entry, or hearing), so requirement not met
Whether a competence finding weeks earlier precludes later claim of incompetence at plea	Mental illness, medication, and addiction can undermine rational understanding despite prior evaluation	A recent competency evaluation found appellant competent days before plea, with no contrary evidence	Court: Prior competency finding and lack of contrary evidence support conclusion appellant was competent at plea
What showing overcomes the strong presumption of voluntariness created by admonishments and on-the-record attestations	Record evidence of mental illness, expressed unpreparedness, addiction, and trial haste rebut voluntariness	Admonishments plus appellant’s and counsel’s statements create a heavy presumption of voluntariness that appellant failed to overcome	Court: Presumption unrebutted; voluntariness upheld

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (pleas must be voluntary to satisfy due process)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review on motions to withdraw plea)
Jackson v. State, 590 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (motion to withdraw pleadings after adjudication treated as motion for new trial; trial court discretion)
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Rule 21.6 presentment requires bringing the motion to the court's actual attention)
Ex parte Gibeauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (admonishments create prima facie showing of a knowing, voluntary plea)
Jimenez v. State, 987 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (guilty plea is voluntary so long as defendant is aware of direct consequences)