WILLIAMS, MICHAEL JAMES Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-82,970-01 EX PARTE MICHAEL JAMES WILLIAMS, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1445686-A IN THE 208TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY P ER CURIAM. K ELLER, P.J. and K EASLER, J. dissented. OPINION Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of methlenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) in an amount greater than one gram, but less than four grams, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due process because the evidence in his case was tested and found not to contain any MDMA, even though the lab test shows that the evidence contained methamphetamine and cocaine, different controlled 2 substances. The parties have entered agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the trial court has determined that Applicant’s decision to plead guilty in this case was not a voluntary and intelligent choice. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 144568601010 in the 208th District Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Delivered: December 9, 2015 Do not publish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.
