Another Chapter 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus Success for Chris Perri Law
Chris Perri Law is honored to announce that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted our client’s Chapter 11.07 writ of habeas corpus. We are thrilled for the post-conviction relief this brings to our client and his family.
Unlike most of our writs of habeas corpus cases, our goal here was not to overturn the conviction itself, but rather to secure a new punishment hearing. By successfully proving that our client received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney, we were able to persuade the appellate courts and ultimately achieve this result.
In 2024, our client was convicted at trial of a serious felony offense. His criminal defense attorney at the time advised him to waive his right to have the jury decide his punishment, stating that the judge would likely be more sympathetic and grant probation instead of prison time.
However, the attorney was flat-out wrong. Texas law clearly states that in these types of felony cases, a judge does not have the legal authority to grant probation—only a jury may do so. By providing incorrect advice, trial counsel deprived our client of the opportunity to seek probation. Given that our client was a first-time offender and considering the specific facts of the case, it is quite possible that a jury would have chosen to grant it.
Now, because the judicial punishment hearing has been overturned, our client will have the opportunity to ask a jury to grant probation or impose a lighter sentence. We are thrilled that our client has been given this second chance and hopeful that he can soon begin rebuilding his life beyond prison walls.
As we often remind both potential and current clients, criminal appeals and writs of habeas corpus are extremely difficult to win—even when the facts are on your side. However, it is equally important to remember that the process is neither fruitless nor impossible. As this case demonstrates, sometimes the Texas and federal appellate courts do say yes.
**Outcomes always depend on the specific facts and law of each case. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes in future cases.