EX PARTE PERRY EUGENE WILLIAMS (other)

Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window













IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. WR-63,237-01 and WR-63,237-02

EX PARTE PERRY EUGENE WILLIAMS

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE

NO. 856243-A IN THE 178TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HARRIS COUNTY

Per Curiam.



O R D E R



This is a post conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.

On June 4, 2002, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. Applicant's direct appeal is currently pending before this Court. Williams v. State, No. AP-74,391.

Applicant presents three allegations in his application in which he challenges the validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. Although an evidentiary hearing was not held, the trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court recommended that relief be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegations made by applicant. We adopt the trial judge's findings and conclusions. Based upon the trial court's findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied.

This Court has also reviewed a document entitled "Notice Of Desire To Raise Additional Habeas Corpus Claims." Because this document was filed after the deadline provided for an initial application for habeas corpus, we find it to be a subsequent application. See Art. 11.071. We further find that the document fails to meet one of the exceptions provided for in Section 5 of Article 11.071 and, thus, have no authority to do anything other than dismiss this subsequent application as an abuse of the writ.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008.



Do Not Publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.