IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS 

NO. WR-89,970-01

EX PARTE COBY RAY HUDGINS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

CAUSE NO. 43,645-B-H-1 IN THE 124TH DISTRICT COURT 

FROM GREGG COUNTY 

RICHARDSON, J., filed a concurring opinion in which HERVEY, J., joined. 

CONCURRING OPINION

Today, the Court grants Applicant a new punishment hearing based on grounds 

initially raised on direct appeal. Although this claim was addressed under direct appeal, 

Applicant was not yet formally diagnosed with post-traumatic-stress disorder (“PTSD”) 

stemming in part from being sexually assaulted as a young child. Because he now brings 

expert evidence showing a PTSD diagnosis and that he was suffering PTSD at the time of 

the offense, I join the majority and concur in granting him a new punishment hearing. 
2

Background

On October 5, 2013, Coby Ray Hudgins, Applicant, was drinking with Kayla 

Williams (his girlfriend’s best friend), his cousin, and his girlfriend’s sister. Hudgins told 

Williams about a pistol he had purchased, and Williams asked to see it. Applicant retrieved 

the pistol from the bedroom. Shortly thereafter, Applicant shot Williams in the forehead, 

killing her, and then fired three additional times in the direction of the other women as they 

fled. Shortly thereafter, he drove his car into the railing of a bridge and was arrested for 

DWI with a blood-alcohol content of 0.284.

Applicant’s testimony was the only testimony presented during the defense’s casein-chief. Applicant testified he did not intend to fire the weapon and did not understand the 

safety mechanisms of the weapon. He testified he did not remember firing at the other 

women. During the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the jury had to choose between whether 

the killing was intentional (murder) or a reckless homicide (manslaughter). The jury found 

Hudgins guilty of murder. 

During the guilt-innocence phase, the jury did not hear anything regarding the 

sexual assault Hudgins endured as a child. Per the trial judge’s ruling, that evidence was

relevant only at the punishment phase of the trial.

During the punishment phase of his trial, Coby Hudgins did not testify.1

 His greatuncle, Ricky Hudgins, testified but did not mention sexual abuse. His father, Michael 

1 Applicant testified during the guilt-innocence phase. While on voir dire and outside the 

presence of the jury, Applicant testified:

Q. Why did you go buy a gun?
3

Hudgins, testified that Coby was sexually assaulted by his cousin, Dustin Lay, when he 

was eight or nine-years old.2 He went to on to explain that Lay was prosecuted and 

convicted of sexual assault against Coby, and that Coby had great fear of Lay being 

released from prison due to threats made by Lay. Lay was released from prison 

approximately 10 months prior to the instant offense. The sole testimony from Michael 

Hudgins regarding the effect of sexual abuse on his son was as follows:

A. Because I was sexually assaulted when I was a child.

Q. All right. What's that got to do with it?

A. I testified in court against the man who sexually assaulted me when I was a child, and I 

was threatened. Said when he got out he was going to come and pay me a visit and kill me.

Q. And this guy is who?

A. Dustin Rhan Lay.

Q. And is he kin to you?

A. Yes, sir. He is my -- he's my cousin.

Q. And do you remember what year you were molested? How old were you?

A. I was 11.

...

Q. Did you eventually testify in court against him? 

A. Yes, sir.

...

Q. Somebody notified your mother that he was getting out of the pen --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- out of jail? And you remembered what he had told you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it wasn't no doubt in your mind he was going to come after you?

A. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

Q. In fact, the first -- I believe the first time we even came to court on this for a status 

docket or something, he was actually in the courtroom --

A. He was sitting right in this courtroom.

Q. -- in jail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't want to come in here?

A. No, sir.

2 Applicant and his father differed on how old Applicant was when Lay sexually assaulted 

Applicant. Eleven compared to eight or nine-years old. Either way, Applicant was still a young 

child. Regardless of the actual date of the sexual assault that led to Applicant testifying against 

Lay, there is evidence of multiple sexual assaults suffered by Applicant. Dr. French’s report 

explains Applicant was sexually assaulted by his cousin multiple times over several years.
4

Q. And I mean, for people who have never been sexually 

assaulted as a kid, we don't know what you go through, do 

we?

A. No, sir.

Q. But it's -- it's got to be bad?

A. I would imagine.

Applicant’s third and last witness was his maternal grandmother, Betty Jean Tucker. 

The sole testimony from Tucker regarding the effect of sexual abuse on her grandson was 

as follows:

Q. Did you know when he was sexually assaulted?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. That whole family went through that together, did they 

not?

A. Yes, we did. It was very hard.

No expert testimony was sought to determine if Hudgins suffered any effects from 

the sexual abuse, or other life events, and how that could potentially lessen his moral 

culpability during the evening in question. The jury sentenced Hudgins to ninety-nine years 

imprisonment. 

Motion for New Trial

Applicant filed a motion for new trial claiming his trial attorney rendered ineffective 

assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and request a forensic 

psychologist/psychiatrist to testify regarding his history as a sex-abuse victim for 

mitigations purposes at the punishment phase of trial. Dr. Wade French testified on behalf 
5

of Hudgins. French testified generally about the effects PTSD can have on an individual. 

French did not examine Applicant directly and only spoke generally about the later 

psychological effects of trauma. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. 

The court of appeals reversed the case on punishment in an opinion that concluded 

“[t]he mitigating evidence potentially available to Appellant which was not adequately 

explored, taken as a whole, might have had an influence on the jury's assessment of 

Appellant's moral culpability.”3 The appellate court found ineffective assistance of counsel 

based on the trial record. Further, it found the trial court had abused its discretion in 

deciding that a more favorable punishment was not reasonably probable. The lower court 

remanded the case for a new punishment hearing. 

On discretionary review, however, this Court reversed the court below and affirmed 

the trial court’s denial of new trial. Because there was no expert testimony specifying how 

Applicant’s sexual assault experience actually affected Applicant, nor an actual diagnosis 

of PTSD, this Court found Applicant unable to show that he was actually prejudiced under 

Strickland. “Especially in the absence of some testimony that Appellant personally suffered 

from the deleterious effects of PTSD, Appellant’s new mitigating evidence was of marginal 

value at best.”4

But in a concurring opinion Judge Hervey noted:

3 Hudgins v. State, No. 12-15-00153-CR, 2017 WL 361204, at *13 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

Jan. 25,2017) (not designated for publication).

4 Hudgins v. State, No. PD-0163-17, 2018 WL 525716, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 24, 

2018) (not designated for publication). 
6

Here, the mitigating evidence presented at the new-trial hearing is 

greater and more qualitative than what was presented by trial counsel. 

French's testimony provided a critical link that was not explored at trial: was 

Hudgins less morally blameworthy for committing the crime than the jury 

believed because he suffered from PTSD, which affected his behavior the 

night of the shooting? While I recognize that the posture of this case is that 

of reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a new trial, which is a difficult 

hurdle to surmount, if squarely presented with the issue, I believe there is a 

reasonable probability that the jury would have assessed a lesser sentence 

had this mitigating evidence been discovered and presented at trial.5

Judge Hervey further noted in an attached footnote:

In light of the majority's disposition of this case, if Hudgins wants to 

continue to seek relief, he must file a post-conviction application for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Through that procedural process Hudgins can develop a writ 

record without the time constraints associated with a new-trial motion. He also 

has a higher chance of success because the issue will be only whether his 

attorney was ineffective, not whether the trial court abused its discretion when 

it denied a motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.6

This is exactly what Applicant did, in this application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Applicant’s Writ of Habeas Corpus

Applicant now comes before this Court and submits a “Mental Status and 

Personality Assessment” conducted by Dr. French which indicates he actually suffers from 

PTSD. This is a result of witnessing family violence at an early age and the years of 

forceful sexual assaults from his cousin, Lay. “Specific symptoms he recalled included 

isolating himself from others, having startled responses to noises, pulling skin off of his 

toes, biting his fingernails to the quick, fearing that he was being watched by others and 

5 Id at *8. (Hervey, J., concurring).

6 Id. at *8 n.11. (Hervey, J., concurring).
7

episodes of depression.” In terms of actual effects on Applicant per Dr. French’s report, 

PTSD can cause arousal symptoms. “The arousal symptoms most often seen include 

irritability, aggression, recklessness, insomnia, hypervigilance and exaggerated startle 

responses.” The report further explains that a person suffering from PTSD can spend a 

considerable amount of time trying to avoid troubling memories. This can sometimes to 

experiencing dissociative symptoms where those suffering PTSD can come to believe they 

are actually reliving the traumatic event.

The State argues that, despite this new evidence, Applicant’s claims are 

procedurally barred on habeas writ because they were already addressed on direct appeal. 

However, Applicant has raised new and relevant material evidence to show that he 

“personally suffer[s] the deleterious effects of PTSD.”7 Compared to the speculative 

evidence of PTSD at trial, the report provides a more “concrete basis” for the jury to 

deliberate on because it allows Dr. French to actually opine on “Appellant’s potential for 

recidivism.”8 Thus, Applicant’s claims should not be barred from being re-urged on a writ 

of habeas corpus.9

7 Id. at *3.

8 Id. 

9 Ex parte Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“Claims raised and 

rejected on direct appeal are generally not cognizable on habeas corpus. However, in Ex parte 

Torres, we stated: ‘this doctrine should not be applied where [1] direct appeal cannot be expected 

to provide an adequate record to evaluate the claim in question, and [2] the claim might be 

substantiated through additional evidence gathering in a habeas corpus proceeding.’”).
8

It is apparent that Applicant’s trial counsel should have presented expert testimony 

during the punishment phase. Expert testimony regarding Applicant’s traumatic history as 

a child sexual assault victim combined with the physical and mental effects of that trauma 

could have mitigated the 99-year sentence Applicant received. Thus, Applicant was 

prejudiced and should be granted a new punishment hearing. 

For these reasons, I respectfully join the majority and concur. 

Filed: June 19, 2024

Do not publish