If you or a loved one is serving a Texas felony sentence, one question matters more than most: did your trial lawyer do their job? When the answer is no, you may have one of the most powerful grounds available in an 11.07 writ of habeas corpus: ineffective assistance of counsel.
Quick answer: Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a constitutional claim that your lawyer’s performance fell below a reasonable standard and that the mistake likely changed the outcome of your case. Texas courts have granted 11.07 relief when lawyers failed to investigate, failed to convey a plea offer, gave false information to induce a guilty plea, failed to request required jury instructions, and more.
Lets walk through real Texas cases where courts granted relief on IAC grounds. You can look up each case by name to learn more and compare it with what happened in yours.
What is an 11.07 writ, and what counts as ineffective assistance?
An 11.07 writ of habeas corpus is the process Texas uses to challenge a final felony conviction after the direct appeal is over. It is named for Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is filed in the convicting court and decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees you effective help from your lawyer, not just a lawyer standing beside you. Under Strickland v. Washington, an IAC claim has two parts:
- Deficient performance. Your lawyer’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
- Prejudice. There is a reasonable probability the result would have been different without the error.
IAC is often the strongest 11.07 ground because many of these mistakes happen off the record. A lawyer who never investigated, never passed along a plea offer, or misled a client usually leaves no trace in the trial transcript. The writ process is where that evidence can finally be presented.
When your lawyer failed to investigate
A defense lawyer has a duty to investigate the facts before trial or a plea. Texas courts have found IAC in cases like these:
- Evidence that someone else committed the crime. In Ex parte Amezquita, counsel failed to investigate information pointing to another person as the offender.
- Childhood abuse as mitigating evidence. In Ex parte Gonzales, a capital murder case, trial counsel failed to investigate and present evidence that the client suffered sexual or physical abuse as a child. That evidence mattered at sentencing.
- Known mental health issues. In Woods v. State, the lawyer had substantial information about the client’s mental health and how it may have contributed to the offense, yet never investigated it.
- Medical evidence before a guilty plea. In Ex parte Briggs, an injury-to-a-child case, counsel failed to thoroughly investigate the medical evidence before advising the client to plead guilty.
When your lawyer made mistakes at trial
Some IAC claims come from what happened, or didn’t happen, in the courtroom.
- Expert testimony. In Ex parte Ard, counsel failed to adequately present expert testimony to the jury.
- Medical evidence supporting the defense. In Ex parte Overton, the attorney failed to present competent medical evidence that would have supported the defendant’s defense.
- A limiting instruction on extraneous offenses. In Ex parte Varelas, the State offered evidence of other crimes or bad acts. Counsel should have requested an instruction telling the jury to consider that evidence only if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and only for the limited purposes the Rules of Evidence allow. Failing to ask for it was IAC.
- An accomplice-witness instruction. In Ex parte Zepeda, the only evidence against the client was accomplice testimony. Texas law requires that testimony to be corroborated, so a proper instruction would have prevented a conviction. Counsel never requested it.
- A defective indictment. In Ex parte Drinkert, counsel failed to object to an indictment based on an invalid theory of felony capital murder.
When your guilty plea was based on bad advice
Most Texas felony cases end in a plea, so plea-stage errors are common grounds.
- A plea offer never passed along. In Ex parte Lemke, the State made a plea offer and the lawyer never told the client. Failing to convey an offer is IAC.
- Evidence that didn’t exist. In Melton v. State, a robbery case, the attorney failed to investigate and told the client a videotape showed him committing the robbery. No such tape existed. The client had a history of alcoholic blackouts, believed his lawyer, and pleaded guilty because of that misinformation.
If your lawyer pressured you to plead based on evidence you never saw, or you later learned an offer existed, that is worth a close look.
When your lawyer failed you at sentencing or on appeal
- Probation never requested. In Ex parte Welch, the defendant wanted probation and was eligible for it, but counsel never filed an application for it.
- Appellate counsel’s duty to inform. In Ex parte Crow, appellate counsel did not tell the client he had the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. IAC claims are not limited to trial lawyers.
Quick reference: Texas IAC cases where relief was granted
| Case | What the lawyer did or failed to do | Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) | Didn’t investigate evidence someone else committed the crime | Investigation |
| Ex parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) | Didn’t investigate or present childhood abuse as mitigation | Sentencing (capital) |
| Ex parte Armstrong, No. WR-78,106-01, 2017 WL 5483404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) | Didn’t present adequate mental health evidence | Sentencing (capital) |
| Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) | Didn’t investigate medical evidence before advising a plea | Plea |
| Ex parte Ard, 2009 WL 618982 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) | Didn’t adequately present expert testimony | Trial |
| Ex parte Overton, 444 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) | Didn’t present an expert physician to refute the State’s case | Trial |
| Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) | Didn’t request a limiting instruction on extraneous offenses | Trial |
| Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) | Didn’t request an accomplice-witness instruction | Trial |
| Ex parte Drinkert, 821 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) | Didn’t object to an indictment on an invalid felony murder theory | Pretrial |
| Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) | Didn’t convey a plea offer | Plea |
| Melton v. State, 987 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1998, no pet.) | Told client nonexistent video evidence existed | Plea |
| Ex parte Welch, 981 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) | Didn’t file an application for probation | Sentencing |
| Ex parte Crow, 180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) | Didn’t tell client of right to file a pro se PDR | Appeal |
Frequently asked questions
What are the best grounds for an 11.07 writ in Texas?
Ineffective assistance of counsel is one of the most powerful. Other common grounds include involuntary guilty pleas, prosecutors withholding favorable evidence, false testimony, and actual innocence. The best ground is the one that depends on the facts of your case.
How do I prove ineffective assistance of counsel?
You must show two things: your lawyer’s performance was unreasonable, and there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the error. Evidence often comes from affidavits, case files, and records outside the trial transcript.
Can I raise IAC if I pleaded guilty?
Yes. Several cases above, including Melton, Briggs, and Lemke, involve plea-stage errors. A plea based on false information or incomplete investigation may not be knowing and voluntary.
Does IAC apply to my appellate lawyer?
Yes. Ex parte Crow shows that appellate counsel can be ineffective, for example by failing to tell a client about the right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Is there a deadline to file an 11.07 writ?
Texas has no fixed statute of limitations for 11.07 writs, but delay can still hurt your case, and federal habeas has a strict one-year deadline. Generally, you get one full 11.07 application, so the grounds you choose matter.
Does your case fit one of these patterns?
These are just some of the IAC grounds courts have granted relief on in published opinions. There are many others. If something here sounds like what happened in your case, read those opinions and think about whether an 11.07 writ built on IAC is in your best interest.
BZ Law Firm handles post-conviction relief cases across Texas from our office in Abilene. Our free case review is a 30-minute call to understand your case and whether a writ is even possible. Schedule your free case review or call our office, Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
About the author. Jacob Blizzard is Board Certified in Criminal Law and Criminal Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He represents clients throughout Texas in post-conviction and appellate matters.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any case.
Take the Next Step Toward Justice
Post-conviction relief is complex, but you don’t have to navigate it alone.
Contact Blizzard & Zimmerman Attorney today for a free case review of your loved one’s situation. Our team can determine the best path forward to challenge an unjust conviction and fight for their second chance at freedom. Call us at (325) 252-6064.