Opinion
NO. WR-70,513-02
07-10-2018
EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY YOUNG, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 2005-CR-1183 IN THE 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BEXAR COUNTY Per curiam. HERVEY and YEARY, JJ., not participating. 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 2006, a jury found applicant guilty of the 2004 capital murder of Hasmukh Patel. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to 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. Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
In his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus, among other claims, applicant alleged that: his trial counsel were ineffective at the guilt and punishment phases of trial; the trial judge failed to give adequate jury instructions; and the death penalty scheme is unconstitutional. This Court denied relief on the claims. Ex parte Young, No. WR-70,513-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2013)(not designated for publication).
On July 2, 2018, applicant filed in the trial court the instant writ application. Applicant raises a single claim in the application in which he asserts that "[p]eremptory challenges based on an individual's religious affiliation, and not [the individual's] personal religious belief or activity, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause." Applicant asserts that the legal basis for his claim only became available after he filed his initial state habeas application.
Contrary to applicant's assertion, the legal basis for his claim existed at the time of his direct appeal and initial habeas application. See, e.g., Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). Thus, he has failed to meet the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss this application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claim raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). Applicant's motion to stay his execution is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY, 2018. Do not publish