Full Opinion

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