Opinion
WR-46,587-05
11-07-2023
EX PARTE BRENT RAY BREWER, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W-6997-A-4 IN THE 47TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RANDALL COUNTY
ORDER
Per curiam.
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 and a motion to stay Applicant's execution.
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles in this order refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In June 1991, a jury convicted Applicant of capital murder and answered the punishment questions in a manner requiring the judge to sentence him to death. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, but his sentence was later vacated by a federal district court. See Brewer v. State, No. AP-71,307 (Tex. Crim. App. June 22, 1994) (not designated for publication); see also Brewer v. Dretke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14761 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2004); Brewer v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 286 (2007); Brewer v. Quarterman, 512 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007). Applicant received a new punishment hearing in 2009, and a jury again answered the punishment questions in a manner requiring the judge to sentence him to death. This Court again affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See Brewer v. State, No. AP-76,378 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2011) (not designated for publication).
This Court also denied relief on the claims raised in Applicant's initial habeas application and his initial habeas application after the punishment retrial. Ex parte Brewer, 50 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Ex parte Brewer, No. WR-46,587-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (not designated for publication). The Court dismissed Applicant's subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Brewer, No. WR-46,587-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 23, 2019) (not designated for publication). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the trial court on November 1, 2023.
In his application, Applicant alleges that the State presented expert testimony from Dr. Richard Coons at his punishment retrial that was false and misleading. We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to show that he satisfies the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claims raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). We deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.