Opinion
NO. WR-61,445-03
04-01-2020
EX PARTE IRVING ALVIN DAVIS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 20010D06419 IN THE 384TH DISTRICT COURT EL PASO COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, § 5.
Unless we specify otherwise, all references in this order to "Articles" refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. --------
On June 22, 2002, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder for killing fifteen-year-old M.M. in the course of committing or attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2). The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction on direct appeal but vacated his sentence. Davis v. State, No. AP-74,393 (Tex. Crim. App. June 13, 2007) (not designated for publication).
Applicant's punishment re-trial was held in February 2008 and the jury again answered the special issues submitted to it under Article 37.071. Based on these answers, the trial court again sentenced Applicant to death. We affirmed the sentence on direct appeal. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We also denied Applicant's initial Article 11.071 applications for writ of habeas corpus regarding the 2002 trial and 2008 punishment re-trial. Ex parte Davis, Nos. WR-61,445-01 & WR-61,445-02 (Tex. Crim. App. March 12, 2014) (not designated for publication). This Court received Applicant's subsequent post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus on September 30, 2019.
Applicant presents four allegations in the instant subsequent application. In Claim One, Applicant contends that he was denied a fair trial before an unbiased jury because a juror at his 2002 trial, Severiano Santini, did not disclose that: he had been accused of a serious crime; the accusations against him were pending before the same District Attorney's office prosecuting Applicant; and Santini wanted to serve on Applicant's jury to find Applicant guilty and thereby curry favor with the District Attorney regarding his own case. In Claim Two, Applicant alleges that the State's failure to disclose its investigation and eventual prosecution of Santini for aggravated sexual assault of a minor violated Applicant's Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial.
In Claim Three, Applicant asserts that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the medical examiner's testimony that redness and abrasions in M.M.'s vaginal vault established that the sexual intercourse between Applicant and M.M. was non-consensual. And in Claim Four, Applicant alleges that the State presented false or misleading testimony from the medical examiner that redness and abrasions in M.M.'s vaginal vault established that the sexual intercourse between Applicant and M.M. was non-consensual.
We have reviewed the subsequent application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the subsequent application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2020. Do Not Publish