Opinion
NO. WR-71,296-02
09-20-2017
EX PARTE CLIFTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 114-1505-06 IN THE 114 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.
Applicant was accused of murdering a 93-year-old woman in her home during the course of committing or attempting to commit several felonies (including burglary, robbery and arson) in 2005. DNA evidence was admitted at Applicant's 2006 trial which connected him to the crime. The jury found Applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death.
This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Williams v. State, 270 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Williams, No. WR-71,296-01 (Tex. Crim. App. March 18, 2009)(not designated for publication).
The day before Applicant's scheduled execution in July 2015, Applicant filed this subsequent writ application in the trial court. Applicant alleged that he had recently received notice regarding errors in the population database that had been developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and used by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in its DNA calculations. Applicant also sought a stay of execution to investigate whether the FBI database errors affected the DNA evidence in his trial.
On July 16, 2015, we granted Applicant's motion to stay his execution and remanded the cause for the trial court to review his claim. Melissa Haas, a supervisor at the DPS crime lab, thereafter re-tested the evidence using the updated FBI database and DPS protocol. Defense expert Robert Benjamin reviewed the results of the DNA testing. Both experts agreed that the new test results did not substantively change the original conclusion that Applicant was a/the likely contributor of DNA to the evidence. After a holding a hearing in which Haas testified, the trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be denied.
This Court has reviewed the record with respect to Applicant's claim. We agree with the trial court's recommendation and adopt the trial court's findings and conclusions. Based upon the trial court's findings and conclusions and our own review, we deny relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 20 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. Do Not Publish