Opinion issued August 11, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-26-00337-CR
EX PARTE KIMBERLY WILLIAMS
On Appeal from the 177th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1758098-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kimberly Williams, challenges the trial court’s order dismissing
her third application for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Background
After appellant, with an agreed punishment recommendation from the State,
pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of assault of a family member, the trial court deferred adjudication of her guilt and placed her on community supervision
for two years.
In 2022, appellant filed her first application for writ of habeas corpus under
article 11.072, challenging her conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072.
The trial court denied appellant’s requested habeas relief and issued findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Appellant did not appeal that ruling.
In 2023, appellant filed her second application for writ of habeas corpus under
article 11.072, challenging the same conviction. The State argued appellant was not
entitled to habeas relief because she had filed her second application after the final
disposition of her first application. The trial court denied appellant’s requested
habeas relief and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant appealed,
and our Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part. See generally Ex parte
Williams, No. 01-23-00565-CR, 2024 WL 3892483 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Aug. 22, 2024, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
In 2026, appellant filed her third application for writ of habeas corpus under
article 11.072, asserting she is entitled to habeas relief regarding the same conviction
because of newly discovered evidence, claiming actual innocence and ineffective
assistance of counsel. Again, the State argued appellant was not entitled to habeas
relief because she had filed her third application after the final disposition of her first
2
application. And again, the trial court agreed, dismissing appellant’s third
application. Appellant now appeals.
Analysis
“After a trial court considers and rejects an applicant’s initial article 11.072
habeas corpus application, that court may not consider subsequent article 11.072
applications unless the new application contains sufficient specific facts
‘establishing that the current claims and issues have not been and could not have
been presented’ in a previous application ‘because the factual or legal basis for the
claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application.’” Ex
parte Nelson, No. 01-19-00401-CR, 2019 WL 5151415, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Oct. 15, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (quoting
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 9(a)).
Here, the trial court rejected appellant’s 2022 application, which she did not
appeal, and her 2023 application, which we upheld on appeal. Appellant filed the
subject third application in 2026, which the trial court dismissed because it was filed
after final disposition of her earlier applications, and she proffered no facts regarding
why her current claims and issues could not have been presented in the earlier
applications. The trial court properly did so. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072,
§ 9(a).
3
Accordingly, without requesting briefing, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1, 31.2; Nelson, 2019 WL 5151415, at *4. All pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
Andrew Johnson
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Caughey, Johnson, and Dokupil.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4