Opinion
NO. WR-76,786-03
09-23-2019
EX PARTE ROBERT SPARKS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. W08-01020-J(C) IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. THREE DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam. ORDER
This is a post conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071 and a motion for a stay of execution.
In December 2008, a jury convicted Applicant of the offense of capital murder. 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. Sparks v. State, No. AP-76,099 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 20, 2010)(not designated for publication).
In his initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus, which he filed in the convicting court in August 2010, Applicant raised two allegations. Both allegations centered on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights because a bailiff wore, in the presence of the jury, a necktie bearing the image of a hypodermic syringe seeping liquid. This Court denied relief on Applicant's claims. Ex parte Sparks, No. WR-76,786-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2011) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed his first subsequent writ application (our -02) in the convicting court on February 21, 2014. In this application, Applicant raised a single claim in which he asserted that State's witness A.P. Merillat "[gave] false testimony at trial concerning the classification level at which Applicant would enter TDCJ if sentenced to life without parole." This Court determined that the claim did not meet the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5 and dismissed the application. Ex parte Sparks, No. WR-76,786-02 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2014) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed the current writ application in the convicting court on September 10, 2019. In this application, Applicant raises a single claim in which he asserts that he is intellectually disabled. Therefore, he asserts, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment.
We have reviewed the application and find that the allegation does not satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claim raised, and we deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution. Art. 11.071 § 5(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. Do not publish