WILLIAMS, IRVIN JOSEPH Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-90,503-01 EX PARTE IRVIN JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1313198-A IN THE 182ND DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 52 years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Williams v. State, No. 01-11-00662-CR (Tex. App.–Houston[1st], April 30, 2013). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely notify him that his direct appeal had been affirmed and that he had the right to file a pro se PDR. We remanded this application to the trial court for development of the record and findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2 The trial court has determined that appellate counsel failed to timely inform Applicant that he could file a pro se PDR. As a result, Applicant lost the opportunity to timely file a pro se PDR. Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow, 180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in cause number 01-11-00662CR that affirmed his conviction in cause number 131319801010 from the 182nd District Court of Harris County. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Delivered: November 23, 2022 Do not publish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.
