Williams, Clifton Lamar

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-71,296-03
EX PARTE CLIFTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 114-1505-06-C IN THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY
Per curiam. Y EARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which K ELLER, P.J., and
S LAUGHTER, J., joined.
OPINION
This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case that
Applicant filed pursuant to Article 11.071, Section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. Applicant raised a single allegation in this application that he is intellectually
disabled and ineligible for the death penalty under the United States Supreme Court’s
holding in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and the Eighth Amendment. On direct
appeal, we held the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s negative answer to the
WILLIAMS--2
intellectual disability special issue in the punishment charge at trial. Williams v. State,
270 S.W.3d 112, 113-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We denied relief on Applicant’s two
prior habeas applications, which did not raise Atkins claims. Ex parte Williams, No.
WR-71,296-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2009) (not designated for publication); Ex
parte Williams, No. WR-71,296-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2017) (not designated for
publication).
In 2017, the United States Supreme Court concluded that some of the standards in
our caselaw did not comport with the Eighth Amendment’s requirements regarding an
intellectual disability determination. Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017). On June 5,
2018, we remanded this application to the trial court to further develop evidence and to
make a recommendation on the issue of intellectual disability in light of Moore. 1
The convicting court made findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending
that we grant relief on Applicant’s claim of intellectual disability. Having reviewed the
record in this case, we determine that the convicting court’s findings and conclusions are
supported by the record. Relief is granted on Applicant’s intellectual disability claim.
Accordingly, we reform Applicant’s sentence of death to a sentence of life
imprisonment. 2
1
We remanded this application to the trial court “for a live hearing.” The trial court
scheduled a hearing, but canceled it after the parties notified the trial court that their experts
agreed that Applicant is intellectually disabled.
2
At the time of Applicant’s offense in July 2005, the only available alternative punishment
(continued...)
WILLIAMS--3
Delivered: December 9, 2020
Do not publish
2
(...continued)
for capital murder was life with the possibility of parole. Life without parole was enacted in 2005,
but did not take effect until September 1, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 787, §§ 1, 17, pp.
2705, 2709, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.