Appeals and Writs of Habeas Corpus in Austin, TX

Throughout his 20 year career, Keith S. Hampton Attorney at Law has successfully defended a number of criminal cases in Texas. Many cases were also appealed and deliberated in the Texas Criminal Appeals Court, which is known as the highest court in the state that ultimately decides a case outcome. 

Reported Appellate Cases

Here is a representative list of some reported cases that were litigated in Texas Criminal Appeals court by Keith S. Hampton Attorney at Law:

• Ex parte Cook, 691 S.W.3d 532 (Tex.Crim.App. 2024), exoneration of innocent man twice put on death row.
• Ex parte Griffin, No. PD-0611-24, 2025 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 279 (Crim. App. Sep. 3, 2025), reversal involving a lawyer wrongfully faulted for his writ work.
• Staley v. State, No. 02-23-00053-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1526 (Tex. App. Mar. 6, 2025), reversal involving a bad search warrant in a capital murder case.
• State v. Nassour, 706 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.App. – Austin 2024), defeating the prosecution’s authority to appeal in that case.
• State v. Holloway, 714 S.W.3d 153 (Tex.App. – Austin 2024), successful exclusion of evidence due to illegal search of a cellphone.
• Chambers v. State, No. 06-18-00090-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1305 (Tex. App. Mar. 1, 2023), reversal due to bad jury instructions.
• Chambliss v. State, No. 11-21-00046-CR, 2023 Tex.App. LEXIS 1570 (Tex.App. Mar. 9, 2023), winning a rare acquittal on appeal.
• In re Borunda, 528 S.W.3d 149 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2017), establishing mandamus authority of district courts.
• Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011), winning affirmance of defendants’ constitutional right to counsel of their choice.
• Panetti v. Quarterman, 549 U.S. 1250 (2007), establishing the national standard for competency in death penalty cases.
  
• Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)—involved the extent of the exclusionary rule to private action.
  
• Tuck v. State, 215 S.W.3d 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)—reaffirmed the right of indigent persons to a free record for appeal.
• Dyar v. State, 124 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)—DWI case concerning whether a hospital could be considered a suspicious place justifying police action.
• State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)—death penalty case in which the State sought to stop DNA testing.
• Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)—focused on the right to present a defense that another person was responsible for the crime.
• Ex part Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002)—major decision regarding due process rights of prisoners.
• Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App. – Austin 2001), winning release of defendant after acquittals for three 99-year prison sentences.
• Tucker v. State, 990 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999)—decision regarding the preservation of appellate complaints.
• In re L. M., 993 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.App. – Austin 1999), reversing conviction of youngest person in the country ever tried for capital murder.
• Hernandez v. State, 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), reversing capital murder case for appellate court failure to conduct proper review.
• State v. Read, 965 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.App. – Austin 1998), successfully defending order for new trial against the State’s appeal.
• Edmonson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.App. – Austin 1997), reversing conviction based on wrongful exclusion of evidence.
• Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), reversing for removal of qualified juror.
• Ortega v. State, 860 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.App. – Austin 1993), reversing trial court’s revocation of probation with all points of error affirmed.