William Thomas Nicholas Jr v. State, 05-15-00454-CR

Appellant William Thomas Nicholas Jr. pleaded guilty to a 1986 misdemeanor DWI; later DWI convictions (1994, 1998) were used to enhance subsequent DWI and assault sentences.
In 1998 a third DWI was elevated to a felony based on the 1986 and 1994 DWI convictions; appellant received a 3-year sentence.
In 2010 appellant pled guilty to two aggravated assaults; prior felony DWI was used to enhance those sentences to first-degree offenses, yielding two life terms.
On January 22, 2015, appellant filed a pro se article 11.072 habeas application attacking the voluntariness of his 1986 guilty plea, arguing he was indigent and not admonished about the right to counsel.
The trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the habeas application contained no unresolved issues material to the legality of appellant’s current confinement.
Appellant appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding appellant presented no evidence to meet his burden that the 1986 plea was involuntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1986 guilty plea was involuntary for lack of counsel admonishment	Nicholas: plea involuntary because indigent and not admonished of right to attorney	State: record supports trial court findings; appellant presented no evidence beyond his pleading	Court: No evidence proved involuntariness; petition insufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Nicholas: implied error by denial without hearing	State: no statutory requirement to hold evidentiary hearing; court may deny without hearing	Court: No hearing required under art. 11.072; denial without hearing proper
Whether a void 1986 judgment should be removed as enhancement	Nicholas: if 1986 plea void, it cannot be used to enhance later DWI	State: 1986 conviction not shown void; enhancement lawful	Court: Because involuntariness not proven, conviction stands and could be used for enhancement
Whether the habeas application sufficiently proved facts	Nicholas: relied on sworn application statements	State: pleadings alone do not constitute evidence; burden on applicant to prove allegations	Court: Applicant failed to meet burden; pleadings insufficient; findings upheld

Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review and burden for habeas claims alleging involuntary plea)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to trial court factual findings in habeas proceedings)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (deference to trial court when credibility/demeanor control review of ultimate question)
Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (applicant bears burden to prove factual allegations in habeas application)
Ex parte Wells, 332 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (a sworn habeas application is a pleading and does not prove itself)
Ex parte Cummins, 169 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (no requirement to hold evidentiary hearing under art. 11.072 before ruling)
State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (recognition that pleadings alone are insufficient evidence in habeas context)