Opinion
WR-84,066-03
10-25-2023
EX PARTE JUAN BALDERAS, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 1412826 IN THE 228TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
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.
In February 2014, a jury convicted Applicant of capital murder for murdering Eduardo Hernandez in the course of committing or attempting to commit burglary. Tex. Penal Code 19.03(a)(2). The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016), and denied relief on his initial Article 11.071 application for a writ of habeas corpus, Ex parte Balderas, No. WR-84,066-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (not designated for publication). We received this, Applicant's first (amended) subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus, on July 10, 2023.
Applicant presents five allegations in his subsequent application. In Claim 1, Applicant alleges that the State violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. In Claims 2 and 3, Applicant asserts that he was incompetent to stand trial (Claim 3) and that his trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to raise the issue of his competency at trial (Claim 2). In Claim 4, Applicant contends that his trial counsel violated his right to present an alibi defense. And in Claim 5, Applicant avers that the State violated his due process rights under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), because it failed to correct false testimony.
We have reviewed the subsequent application and find that Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing that he satisfies 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.