Opinion
NO. WR-78,128-02
03-08-2017
EX PARTE PETE RUSSELL, JR.
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 898795-A IN THE 262 DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.
On August 13, 2001, Applicant fatally stabbed Tanjala Brewer. Applicant believed that the victim had set him up on a delivery of a cocaine charge. Applicant was sentenced to ten years for the delivery of a controlled substance charge, but asked the court to delay the date for execution of the sentence. Applicant committed the instant offense while on bond from the court.
In February 2003, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Russell, No. WR-78,128-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 27, 2013). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on October 24, 2016.
The record reflects that Applicant is currently challenging his conviction in Cause No. 4:13-CV-03636, styled Pete Russell v. William Stephens, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The record also reflects that the federal district court has entered an order staying its proceedings for Applicant to return to state court to consider his current unexhausted claims. Therefore, this Court may exercise jurisdiction to consider this subsequent state application. See Ex parte Soffar, 143 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Applicant presents nine allegations in the instant application. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in Claims 1 and 2. He asserts in Claim 3 that the prosecutor improperly argued that "personal moral culpability was equivalent to responsibility for the crime." In Claims 4 and 5, he contends that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to argue, investigate, and prove that he did not kill the victim in the course of committing or attempting to commit retaliation. In Claim 6, Applicant alleges that the State "might not" have disclosed an engagement ring that was seized from him at the time of his arrest. Applicant asserts in Claim 7 that trial counsel were ineffective for failing "to investigate and present potential evidence" that he "did not pose a future threat of danger to society." In Claims 8 and 9, he contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and the prosecutor's improper jury argument on direct appeal.
We have reviewed this application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 8 DAY OF MARCH, 2017. Do Not Publish