What did the court decide?

The court dismissed Dixon’s habeas petition because it does not have the authority to hear original criminal habeas cases and thus could not provide the relief he requested.

Who is affected by this decision?

Dixon is affected because his petition was dismissed; the trial court and any higher courts retain authority over his criminal case and any habeas relief.

What can Dixon do next to seek relief?

He can file an original writ in a court that has criminal habeas jurisdiction—the Court of Criminal Appeals, a district court, a county court, or a judge of those courts—or raise suppression issues in the trial court with assistance from counsel.

Does the opinion address his complaint about appointed counsel?

The opinion notes that a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation, citing precedent, but did not adjudicate any claim of ineffective assistance.

In Re William Penn Dixon v. the State of Texas

Docket 10-26-00131-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Habeas CorpusDismissed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 10-26-00131-CR

Original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the intermediate appellate court challenging trial court inaction on a suppression issue

Summary

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed William Penn Dixon’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the intermediate appellate court lacks original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. Dixon had asked the court to order the trial court to act, hold a hearing, suppress evidence, and dismiss pending criminal charges alleging an illegal search. The court explained that jurisdiction to hear original criminal habeas petitions rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges in those courts, so the appellate court could not grant the requested relief and dismissed the filing for want of jurisdiction.

Issues Decided

Whether the intermediate appellate court has original habeas corpus jurisdiction in a criminal matter
Whether the appellate court can order the trial court to hold a hearing, make findings, suppress evidence, or dismiss charges in an original habeas proceeding

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on statutory and precedential law that vests original habeas jurisdiction in criminal cases with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges of those courts, not intermediate appellate courts. Because the Tenth Court of Appeals lacks authority to grant the relief Dixon sought, it could not order the trial court to act or suppress evidence, and dismissal for want of jurisdiction was required. The opinion also noted that a represented defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, addressing Dixon’s claim about appointed counsel.

Authorities Cited

Texas Government Code § 22.221(d)
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.05
Ex parte Braswell630 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding)
Robinson v. State240 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

Parties

Petitioner: William Penn Dixon
Judge: Justice Steve Smith
Judge: Chief Justice Johnson
Judge: Justice Harris

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
File in a court with proper jurisdiction
If seeking an original criminal habeas writ, file the petition in the Court of Criminal Appeals, a district court, a county court, or before a judge of those courts, where such original habeas petitions may be heard.
2
Raise suppression issue in trial court
Work with appointed trial counsel to file a motion to suppress in the trial court and request a hearing on the illegal-search claim.
3
Consult counsel about appellate options
Consult an attorney to determine whether to seek relief by filing an original habeas application in a proper court or pursue other post-conviction remedies; consider deadlines and procedural requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed Dixon’s habeas petition because it does not have the authority to hear original criminal habeas cases and thus could not provide the relief he requested.
Who is affected by this decision?: Dixon is affected because his petition was dismissed; the trial court and any higher courts retain authority over his criminal case and any habeas relief.
What can Dixon do next to seek relief?: He can file an original writ in a court that has criminal habeas jurisdiction—the Court of Criminal Appeals, a district court, a county court, or a judge of those courts—or raise suppression issues in the trial court with assistance from counsel.
Does the opinion address his complaint about appointed counsel?: The opinion notes that a defendant represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation, citing precedent, but did not adjudicate any claim of ineffective assistance.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

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