The July 27, 2007, opinion in Ex parte Williams, No. 03-07-00018-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5959, is an interesting take on Texas habeas law.

Relying on pre-1995 caselaw (when CCP 11.07 s.3(c) was amended to better-define "confinement"), the Court comes to the following conclusion (which is only the best example of the through-the-looking-glass nature of this opinion): "It is not necessary that the article 11.07 applicant be confined as a result of the conviction he seeks to challenge; article 11.07 applies when the habeas applicant is in custody pursuant to a felony conviction even if that is not the conviction challenged."

Now, I'm as State's-minded as the next guy, but I really wonder how this came about. Applicant Williams' habeas challenge in this case is to a consecutively-assessed sentence he has not yet begun to serve.


See also Ex parte Okere, 56 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd) (stating its opinion that Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that 11.07 applicants must be "in custody") is superceded after the 1995 amendments).