A conviction is not the end.
Errors occur at trial. Lawyers fail their clients. New evidence surfaces. The law changes. When any of those things happen, remedies may exist—if you have a lawyer who can find them.
Mark Bennett is Board Certified in Criminal Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. We handle post-conviction matters—habeas corpus—in state courts across Texas.
If you have been sentenced within the last 30 days, or if you have filed a notice of appeal, you are probably looking for a lawyer to handle a direct appeal. See our Texas criminal appeal lawyer page.
For the full map—direct appeals, postconviction habeas under articles 11.07 and 11.072, and pretrial habeas—see Direct Appeals and Postconviction Relief.
How much does a post-conviction attorney cost?
A $500 consultation fee covers a review of the procedural history of the case and a discussion of potential grounds for post-conviction relief. There are no free consultations.
If you decide to move forward after the consultation, we charge at least $10,000—often more, depending on the circumstances—to investigate the case and determine whether grounds exist for filing a petition for habeas relief.
If investigation turns up viable grounds, we charge at least $15,000—often more—to prepare, file, and pursue habeas relief through the Texas courts, including any state appeals.
Post-conviction work is expensive because it is thorough and specialized.
What is habeas corpus?
Habeas corpus is the primary post-conviction remedy for issues that could not be raised on direct appeal. It asks not whether the trial court made legal errors on the record, but whether something made the conviction or punishment unlawful that the appellate record never captured.
The most common grounds:
Ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel’s performance fell below professional standards, and that failure affected the outcome. Habeas is the right vehicle because the evidence—what counsel did or failed to do, and why—lives outside the trial record. Grounds include failure to investigate, failure to challenge inadmissible evidence, and bad advice about whether to testify or accept a plea.
Brady violations. The prosecution is constitutionally required to disclose evidence favorable to the defense. Undisclosed witness deals, suppressed forensic results, withheld impeachment material—when any of that surfaces, a Brady claim may lie.
Newly discovered evidence. Evidence that did not exist at trial, or that due diligence could not have uncovered, and that would have changed the result.
False or recanted testimony. A witness has admitted lying. Forensic science presented at trial has since been discredited.
Actual innocence. Texas courts can grant habeas relief when newly available evidence is so compelling that no rational juror would have convicted. These are hard cases. We take them.
How does Texas habeas work?
Texas habeas proceedings are governed by Chapter 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right statute depends on the type of case.
Article 11.07 applies to felony convictions where the applicant is not on probation. The application is filed in the convicting court. That court holds an evidentiary hearing if the facts are contested, enters findings, and transmits the record to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which has the final word.
Article 11.072 applies when the applicant is serving community supervision. Unlike an 11.07 application, the convicting court issues the final ruling, which is then appealable to the court of appeals.
Article 11.071 governs capital cases. The procedure is more elaborate.
Habeas is not an appeal. It is a separate civil proceeding with its own rules, deadlines, and procedural traps. Claims not raised in the initial application can be forfeited in later ones. Filing strategy matters.
See our case results.
How long does a habeas case take?
Months, at least. Sometimes years. Chapter 11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets timelines that trial courts must follow, but habeas cases have been tied up in the courts of appeals—for article 11.072 probation cases—and in the Court of Criminal Appeals—for article 11.07 cases—for several years. Ex parte Cook took seven years.
What about a “sentence reduction” or “time cut”?
The correct term is commutation of sentence. “Time cut” is prison and practitioner vernacular; it does not appear in the governing authorities.
The legal framework: Article IV, section 11 of the Texas Constitution grants the Governor clemency power upon written recommendation of a Board of Pardons and Paroles majority. Section 508.050 of the Government Code authorizes the Board’s role. The operative procedural rules are in 37 Texas Administrative Code section 143.52.
The process requires written recommendations from at least two of the three “trial officials”—the current sheriff, district attorney, and sitting judge of the convicting county, not the individuals who held those positions at the time of trial. Those recommendations must include more than a conclusion that the sentence seems too long. Each must state that the penalty now appears excessive, identify a specific term considered just, and explain why: based either on facts that existed at trial but were not available to the court or jury, or on a subsequent statutory change in the applicable penalty. A majority of the Board must then vote to forward the request to the Governor, who decides whether to grant it.
We do not know of a single case in which a commutation has been granted.
If commutation is what you have in mind, we cannot help. If you are looking for a legal challenge to the conviction or sentence itself, that is habeas corpus. See above.
What does it mean when a conviction is overturned?
When a conviction is overturned, a court has determined that the original conviction was legally defective: it may have involved constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or other reversible error. Overturning a conviction does not necessarily mean the defendant goes free. Depending on the basis for the ruling, the result may be a new trial, a reduced sentence, or, in rarer cases, outright dismissal of the charges.
How do I get started?
Pay the $500 consultation fee, then fill out our questionnaire. The questionnaire covers the procedural history of the case—the information we need to have a productive conversation.
After payment, Stripe will direct you to the questionnaire.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a writ of habeas corpus?
A writ of habeas corpus is a challenge to the lawfulness of your confinement. In Texas, the vehicle, if you have been sentenced to prison, is an application under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. It goes first to the trial court, then—if denied—to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
A writ is the right vehicle when the issue depends on facts outside the trial record: ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, Brady violations, actual innocence. It is not a substitute for a direct appeal, and it is not a second direct appeal. The rules about what is “cognizable”—what can be raised—and when, are complicated.
What is ineffective assistance of counsel?
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to reasonably effective counsel. A lawyer who fails to meet that standard—and whose failure probably affected the outcome—provides ineffective assistance.
The standard is deliberately hard to meet. Courts presume that counsel’s decisions were tactical. Proving otherwise requires showing both that the performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different with competent representation.
It is the most commonly raised post-conviction claim. It is also one of the hardest to win. But in cases involving serious errors—failure to investigate, failure to call obvious witnesses, even, sometimes, failure to write a good appellate brief—it can succeed.
What is the difference between a direct appeal and a collateral attack?
A direct appeal follows the conviction as a matter of right. You file it, the court of appeals reviews the trial record, and the court decides whether the trial court made reversible error. It is the first round.
A collateral attack—typically a habeas corpus application—comes later. It raises claims that either could not have been raised on direct appeal (because they depend on facts outside the record) or were not raised but should have been. Collateral attacks face additional procedural hurdles: claims that were available on direct appeal and not raised are generally forfeited.
Issues that belong on direct appeal cannot usually be saved for habeas. Issues that belong in habeas cannot usually be raised for the first time on direct appeal.
My lawyer did not object to something at trial. Is that ineffective assistance?
Not automatically. The failure to object is legally significant only if the objection would have been correct, the failure to make it fell below the standard of reasonable representation, and there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different if the objection had been sustained.
Lawyers make strategic decisions about when to object. Courts give them wide deference. But some failures to object are indefensible: when the evidence was clearly inadmissible, when the objection was obvious, when the prejudice was severe, when there was no good reason not to object. Those cases exist.
The question is not whether the objection would have been good. The question is whether no reasonable lawyer would have declined to make it.
Notable habeas results
In Ex parte Cook, 691 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024), the Court of Criminal Appeals found Kerry Max Cook actually innocent of a 1977 murder—after 21 years of wrongful imprisonment.
In Ex parte Eric Todd Williams, 726 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025), the Court granted habeas relief and set aside an online-solicitation conviction obtained under a statute previously declared facially unconstitutional in Ex parte Lo.
In Ex parte McGee and its companion Ex parte Eugene, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated court-of-appeals dismissals and required the appellate court to address whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss its own contempt judgment after plenary power expired.