Opinion
NO. WR-48,728-04
11-06-2017
EX PARTE RUBEN RAMIREZ CARDENAS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. CR-0722-97-G(4) IN THE 370TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HIDALGO COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
We have before us a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion to stay applicant's execution.
Unless otherwise indicated, all future references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. --------
In February 1998, a jury found applicant guilty of the 1997 capital murder of his 16-year-old cousin. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
In his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised allegations regarding the exclusion of veniremembers opposed to the death penalty, parole ineligibility issues, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. This Court denied relief on the claims. Ex parte Cardenas, No. WR-48,728-01 (Tex. Crim. App. May 16, 2001)(not designated for publication).
In his first subsequent application (our -02), applicant complained that, as a Mexican National, he was denied his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the International Court of Justice's opinion in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals. Citing to Ex parte Medellin, 223 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), this Court dismissed the subsequent application because it did not meet the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Ex parte Cardenas, No. WR-48,728-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2007)(not designated for publication).
In his second subsequent writ application (our -03), applicant raised a single claim in which he asserted that he had been denied his sixth amendment right to counsel under Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 128 S.Ct. 2578 (2008), because the trial court did not appoint him counsel at the time he asserts he first requested counsel. This Court dismissed the application because it did not meet the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Ex parte Cardenas, No. WR-48,728-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 30, 2009)(not designated for publication).
On October 31, 2017, applicant filed the instant writ application in the trial court. Applicant raises six claims in this application. Specifically, applicant claims that: new scientific evidence shows the unreliability of the eyewitness testimony, confessions, and DNA evidence presented at trial; the State withheld impeachment and exculpatory evidence from him, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the State presented false or misleading testimony against him at trial; and the combined errors rendered his trial fundamentally unfair.
Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing that he has met the requirements of either Article 11.073 or Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss this application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claims raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). Applicant's motion to stay his execution is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. Do not publish