Opinion
WR-78,107-01
08-15-2022
EX PARTE KOSOUL CHANTHAKOUMMANE, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. W380-81972-07-HC4, SUGGESTION TO RECONSIDER PREVIOUSLY FILED WRIT APPLICATIONS, AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN THE 380TH DISTRICT COURT COLLIN COUNTY
ORDER
Per curiam.
We have before us a post-conviction 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. We also have before us Applicant's suggestion that we reconsider several claims raised in previously filed writ applications.
Unless we specify otherwise, all references in this order to "Articles" refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
In October 2007, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder for murdering Sarah Walker in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2). Specifically, Applicant was convicted of murdering and robbing real estate agent Walker in the D.R. Horton model home where she worked in the "Craig Ranch" subdivision in McKinney, Texas. 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. Chanthakoummane v. State, No. AP-75,794 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 28, 2010) (not designated for publication). On April 5, 2010, Applicant filed in the convicting court his initial Article 11.071 application for a writ of habeas corpus, raising twelve claims. This Court denied Applicant relief. Ex parte Chanthakoummane, No. WR-78,107-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2013) (not designated for publication).
On January 13, 2017, Applicant filed in the convicting court his first subsequent application, raising four claims. We remanded those claims to the convicting court for a review. Ex parte Chanthakoummane, No. WR-78,107-02 (Tex. Crim. App. June 7, 2017) (not designated for publication). When the application returned to this Court, we denied relief on the merits after a thorough review. Ex parte Chanthakoummane, No. WR-78,107-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2020) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed his second subsequent habeas application in the convicting court on May 13, 2019. Therein, he raised one claim in which he alleged that he was entitled to a new trial under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018). After determining in Ex parte Barbee, 616 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021), that McCoy does not represent a previously unavailable legal basis for satisfying Article 11.071 § 5(a)(1), we dismissed the application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Chanthakoummane, No. WR-78,107-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed this, his third subsequent application for habeas corpus relief, in the convicting court on August 9, 2022. Therein, Applicant raises three claims in which he asserts that new scientific evidence undercuts the validity, reliability, relevance of the DNA evidence used to convict Applicant at trial. Applicant also suggests that this Court should reopen and reconsider several claims that he raised in his previously filed habeas applications.
We have reviewed the subsequent application (our -04) and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5(a) and Article 11.073. Accordingly, we dismiss the subsequent application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. We also decline Applicant's suggestion to reopen and reconsider any of the designated claims raised in his prior habeas applications. Finally, we deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.