Williams, Jeffrey Demond

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Williams, Jeffrey Demond

353 S.W.3d 165, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633, 2011 WL 5877236

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 23, 2011

DocketWR-50,662-03

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 165 (Williams, Jeffrey Demond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams, Jeffrey Demond, 353 S.W.3d 165, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633, 2011 WL 5877236 (Tex. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

On February 9, 2000, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, Tex.Code Crim. Proc., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Williams v. State, No. AP-73,796 (Tex.Crim.App. May 8, 2002). This Court denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Williams, No. WR-50,662-01 (Tex.Crim.App. April 2, 2003). This Court dismissed Applicant’s second post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Williams, No. *166 WR-50,662-02 (Tex.Crim.App. October 8, 2003). Applicant’s instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on July 5, 2011.

Applicant presents the following allegations in the instant application:

I. Mr. Williams has never had effective assistance of counsel or competent counsel with regard to his punishment.

II. The Conflict of State Habeas Counsel Foreclosed Consideration of Mr. Williams’s Meritorious IAC claim, in State or Federal Court, and Did Not Comport with Article 11.071 § 2’s Requirement for Competent Counsel.

III. Alternatively, The Principles of Equity, Fundamental Fairness, Due Process and Due Course of Law Require a Remedy.

We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) (stating that “[w]e have never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions”), citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

On February 9, 2000, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, Tex.Code Crim. Proc., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Williams v. State, No. AP-73,796 (Tex.Crim.App. May 8, 2002). This Court denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Williams, No. WR-50,662-01 (Tex.Crim.App. April 2, 2003). This Court dismissed Applicant’s second post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Williams, No. *166 WR-50,662-02 (Tex.Crim.App. October 8, 2003). Applicant’s instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on July 5, 2011.

Applicant presents the following allegations in the instant application:

I. Mr. Williams has never had effective assistance of counsel or competent counsel with regard to his punishment.

II. The Conflict of State Habeas Counsel Foreclosed Consideration of Mr. Williams’s Meritorious IAC claim, in State or Federal Court, and Did Not Comport with Article 11.071 § 2’s Requirement for Competent Counsel.

III. Alternatively, The Principles of Equity, Fundamental Fairness, Due Process and Due Course of Law Require a Remedy.

We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987) (stating that “[w]e have never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions”), citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 165, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1633, 2011 WL 5877236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-jeffrey-demond-texcrimapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack