Opinion
NO. WR-53,613-14
08-16-2019
EX PARTE LARRY RAY SWEARINGEN, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 99-11-06435-CR FROM THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT MONTGOMERY COUNTY Per curiam. WALKER, J., would grant the motion to stay the execution. ORDER
We have before us an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.
In June 2000, 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 Applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). On March 11, 2002, Applicant filed in the convicting court his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. We denied relief. Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-01 (Tex. Crim. App. May 21, 2003) (not designated for publication). On January 22, 2007, Applicant filed a subsequent application in the convicting court. We remanded six of his claims to the convicting court for review. After the case was returned to this Court, we reviewed the findings of the convicting court, adopted them, and denied relief. Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2008) (not designated for publication).
Future references to Articles refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure unless otherwise indicated. --------
On January 16, 2008, Applicant filed a second subsequent application in the convicting court. We remanded two of his claims to the convicting court for review. After the case was returned to this Court, we reviewed the findings of the convicting court, adopted them, and denied relief. Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2008) (not designated for publication). On January 23, 2009, Applicant filed a pro se subsequent application in the convicting court, and, on the same day, his attorney filed another subsequent application raising twelve claims. This Court dismissed both of those applications in separate orders. Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-08 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2009) (not designated for publication), and Ex parte Swearingen, No. WR-53,613-09 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2009) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed his fifth subsequent writ application in the convicting court on June 22, 2011, in which he raised a single claim of actual innocence. On July 11, 2011, he filed in the convicting court a pleading entitled a "Supplemental Briefing to the Sixth Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus." Because that pleading raised an additional claim, this Court determined that the pleading should be designated a subsequent application. Applicant raised a single due process claim in that application. We remanded both applications to the convicting court for review. After the cases were returned to this Court, we reviewed the findings of the convicting court, adopted all but four of them, and denied relief. Ex parte Swearingen, Nos. WR-53,613-10 and WR-53,613-11 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2012) (not designated for publication).
The current "Successor Application" was filed in the convicting court on August 8, 2019. In the application, Applicant raises ten claims including a claim of actual innocence and various claims attacking the scientific validity of different evidence presented at his trial. On August 12, 2019, Applicant filed in the convicting court a pleading titled a "Supplemental Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Under [sic] Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 11.071 & 11.073." Because this document only supplements the argument to a claim raised in the August 8 filed "Successor Application," we will consider it a part of and in conjunction with the August 8 filed pleading.
After reviewing the pleadings, we find that Applicant's allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5 or Article 11.073. Accordingly, we dismiss the application and supplemental document as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. We also deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019. Do Not Publish