Opinion
NO. WR-78,127-02
03-19-2018
EX PARTE ROSENDO RODRIGUEZ, III, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 2005-410 ,654-B IN THE 140TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT LUBBOCK 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.
In March 2008, a jury found applicant guilty of the 2005 capital murder of Summer Baldwin. 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. Rodriguez v. State, No. AP-75,901 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2011) (not designated for publication).
In his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised allegations regarding whether he was able to engage in meaningful voir dire, jury misconduct, the constitutionality of the mitigation issue, the admission of autopsy photographs, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. This Court denied relief on the claims. Ex parte Rodriguez, No. WR-78,127-01 (Tex. Crim. App. May 8, 2013) (not designated for publication).
On March 12, 2018, applicant filed the instant writ application in the trial court. Applicant raises four claims in this application. Specifically, applicant claims that: the State used a discredited forensic scientist to deprive him of a fundamentally fair trial and convict him in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; the State violated its Brady obligations by failing to disclose a quarter-million-dollar settlement paid to a former employee of the Lubbock County coroner's office; the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and applicant is actually innocent.
Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing that he has met the requirements of either Article 11.071 § 5 or Article 11.073. 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 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2018. Do not publish
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).