Opinion
WR-89,040-03 WR-89,040-04
08-21-2024
EX PARTE CHARLES RAY WILLIAMS, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. W14-75623-I(B) & W14-75616-I(B) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 FROM DALLAS COUNTY
ORDER
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment. Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
In four grounds, Applicant alleges that he has newly discovered email evidence establishing his innocence, that the victim recanted her allegations, that his pleas were coerced, and that the State withheld evidence. This Court remanded. The trial court appointed habeas counsel, held an evidentiary hearing, and entered findings. The trial court recommends denying habeas relief. Habeas counsel has filed objections, and this Court has independently reviewed the record.
The trial court finds that it does not believe the victim's recantation and that the email messages between the victim and a state investigator are not exculpatory. The record supports these findings. Applicant's evidence fails to show that he is actually innocent. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The trial court finds that trial counsel did not coerce Applicant to plead guilty. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The record supports these findings. The trial court finds that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The record supports these findings. Habeas corpus relief is denied.
Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.