Opinion
NO. WR-76,122-02
06-22-2018
EX PARTE DANNY PAUL BIBLE, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 0947117 IN THE 351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
We have before us a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion to stay applicant's execution.
Unless otherwise indicated, all future references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. --------
In June 2003, a jury found applicant guilty of the May 1979 capital murder of Inez Deaton. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.0711 and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised seven allegations. In two of his claims, applicant asserted that the Texas capital punishment scheme violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because there was no system in place to accommodate post-sentencing developments which leave a person no longer capable of posing a future danger. Specifically, applicant referred to an incident which occurred on July 17, 2003, when the van transporting applicant to prison following trial was struck by another vehicle, killing the driver of the prison van and injuring applicant and a guard. Applicant asserted in his initial habeas that the injuries he suffered in this accident rendered him incapable of posing a future danger.
Applicant also asserted in his application that: "evolving standards of decency" required the abolition of the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment; his death sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because clemency procedures in Texas do not provide any guidelines which the Board of Pardons and Paroles should use in determining whether to recommend commutation of a sentence; his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's use of four of its twelve peremptory challenges to strike black members of the venire; and trial and appellate counsel performed deficiently. This Court denied relief on the claims. Ex parte Bible, No. WR- 76,122-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 25, 2012)(not designated for publication).
On June 19, 2018, applicant filed a subsequent writ application in the trial court. Applicant raises two claims in this application. Specifically, applicant claims that his counsel were ineffective for failing to seek a new trial following an automobile accident that left him severely disabled, and he asserts that the absence of guidelines governing the Board of Pardons and Paroles in making a clemency recommendation violates his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Applicant has failed to show that he has met the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss this application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claims raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). Applicant's motion to stay his execution is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2018. Do not publish