In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas (In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-26-00131-CR
In re William Penn Dixon
Original Proceeding
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Penn Dixon, proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled
“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” with this Court. He claims that the
Brazos County District Clerk has refused to file his pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus and that the trial court has refused to hold a hearing on the
petition, in which Dixon claims that the trial court should dismiss his pending
criminal charges based on an illegal search. He asks that we “order the trial
court to respond to the writ” and “send findings of facts [sic],” and further
requests that we suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges.
Intermediate appellate courts do not have original habeas corpus
jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d).
Jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case vests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or any judge
in those courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; Ex parte Braswell,
630 S.W.3d 600, 601-02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding).1
Accordingly, we dismiss Dixon’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for
want of jurisdiction.
STEVE SMITH Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 23, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Dismissed Do not publish OT06
1 We note that Dixon also indicated in his petition that he is represented by court-appointed trial
counsel and that appointed counsel refused to file a motion to suppress on his behalf. Though Dixon questions his appointed counsel’s qualifications, a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
In re William Penn Dixon Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-penn-dixon-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp10-2026.