Whitney Freeman v. State, 09-16-00268-CR

Whitney Freeman pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility; the trial court deferred adjudication, placed her on 8 years' community supervision, and assessed a $500 fine.
The State later moved to revoke Freeman’s community supervision for violations; Freeman pleaded true to two violations.
At the revocation/punishment hearing the trial court adjudicated Freeman guilty and sentenced her to nine years' imprisonment.
On appeal Freeman argued the original indictment was fundamentally defective and void because it named "Dihydrocodeinone," which she claimed was not specifically listed in a Controlled Substances Act penalty group.
The State contended the indictment sufficiently alleged a controlled substance and that Freeman waived any defect by failing to object before trial.
The court analyzed indictment sufficiency, waiver rules for indictment defects, and the void-judgment exception to the general bar on raising errors from the original plea after deferred adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Freeman)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the original indictment was fundamentally defective/void for failing to allege a listed controlled substance	Indictment named “Dihydrocodeinone,” which Freeman contends is not specifically listed in any penalty group, so the charging instrument is constitutionally deficient and leaves the court without jurisdiction	Indictment sufficiently alleged a controlled substance (dihydrocodeinone/hydrocodone fits within Penalty Group 3 or 1 as listed), and Freeman waived any defect by not objecting before pleading guilty	Court held indictment was constitutionally sufficient; dihydrocodeinone is encompassed by controlled-substance listings, so the original judgment was not void and the court had jurisdiction; Freeman waived complaint by failing to object

Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standards for constitutional sufficiency of an indictment and waiver of substantive defects)
Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (void-judgment exception for raising original-plea errors after deferred adjudication)