Opinion
WR-78,106-02 WR-78,106-03 WR-78,106-04
11-15-2017
EX PARTE DOUGLAS TYRONE ARMSTRONG
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR-2095-06-G IN THE 370TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HIDALGO COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
These are post-conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, section 5. Applicant was convicted in January 2007 of capital murder committed in April 2006. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial court sentenced him to death. Art. 37.071, § 2(g). This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Armstrong v. State, No. AP-75,706 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2010) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on February 19, 2009. He filed his second habeas application on November 18, 2011. He filed his third habeas application on July 12, 2012. Applicant filed his fourth habeas application on September 22, 2014. The trial court forwarded all four applications to this Court, and we received them on April 20, 2015, and October 22, 2014.
Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In his initial habeas application, applicant raised five grounds for relief challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence. In Allegation One (C), applicant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to conduct a constitutionally adequate investigation of mitigating evidence. The trial court held a live evidentiary hearing and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that relief be denied. After determining that the record before us was not sufficient to resolve the question, we remanded this allegation for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391, 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
On remand, the trial court conducted a live evidentiary hearing, in which the applicant and the State presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced exhibits in support of their respective positions. After consideration, the trial judge entered supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law and again recommended that relief be denied.
We have resolved applicant's initial writ application by separate opinion, which we have issued this day. As for applicant's second through fourth applications for habeas corpus, we find that they are subsequent applications. See Art. 11.071. We further find that they fail to meet any of the exceptions provided for in Article 11.071, § 5. Therefore, we dismiss the second through fourth applications as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 15th DAY OF November, 2017.
Do Not Publish