In Re William Penn Dixon v. State of Texas
Summary
William Penn Dixon, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco), challenging a pending criminal case based on an alleged illegal search. The Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, citing Texas Government Code § 22.221(d), which provides that intermediate appellate courts do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. The Court noted that jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus in criminal cases vests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or any judge in those courts.
“Intermediate appellate courts do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters.”
About this source
The Texas Courts of Appeals are intermediate appellate courts that hear every appeal from Texas district and county courts before cases reach the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals. Together they publish around 290 opinions a month across civil, criminal, family, probate, and administrative cases. Texas's economy and legal volume mean the courts generate significant precedent on energy, oil and gas, commercial real estate, employment, and family law that affects multistate clients. GovPing tracks every published opinion via CourtListener's mirror, with case name, parties, court division, and outcome. Watch this if you litigate in Texas, advise on energy or land disputes, or track how Texas courts treat federal questions in commercial cases.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) dismissed William Penn Dixon's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. The Court held that intermediate appellate courts lack original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters under Texas Government Code § 22.221(d), and that such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges thereof. The Court also noted that a defendant represented by court-appointed counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation. The petition is dismissed, and the ruling does not address the merits of Dixon's underlying claims regarding an illegal search.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 10-26-00131-CR
- Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Disposition
Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Lead 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
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Texas Court of Appeals
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from TX 10th Dist. Ct..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.