Opinion
NO. WR-69,674-02
12-09-2020
EX PARTE CARLOS MANUEL AYESTAS (aka DENYS MANUEL ZELAYA), Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 07544090101B IN THE 230TH DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
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 July 1997, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder for killing sixty-seven-year-old Santiaga Paneque in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery or burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2). The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction on direct appeal and denied his initial Article 11.071 application for writ of habeas corpus. Ayestas v. State, No. AP-72,928 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 4, 1998) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Ayestas, No. WR-69,674-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 10, 2008) (not designated for publication). This Court received Applicant's subsequent post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus on August 25, 2020.
Applicant presents three allegations in the instant subsequent application. In Claims One and Two, Applicant alleges that the decision to charge him with capital murder violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, respectively. In Claim Three, Applicant asserts that the State's failure to produce a charging memorandum drafted by then-Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S . 83 (1963).
We have reviewed the subsequent application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy 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 THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020. Do Not Publish