Opinion
WR-70,969-04
06-24-2024
EX PARTE RAMIRO FELIX GONZALES, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION FROM CAUSE NO. 04-02-09091-CR IN THE 454TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MEDINA COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM
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.
All references to "Articles" in this order refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure unless otherwise specified.
In August 2006, a jury convicted Applicant of the January 2001 capital murder of Bridget Townsend. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, the trial court sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Gonzales v. State, No. AP-75,540 (Tex. Crim. App. June 17, 2009) (not designated for publication).
We also denied relief on Applicant's initial habeas application. Ex parte Gonzales, No. WR-70,969-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 23, 2009) (not designated for publication). Because of "procedural variations," we later re-opened the case on our own motion, remanded it to the trial court, and ultimately denied relief again. Ex parte Gonzales, No. WR-70,969-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 27, 2012) (not designated for publication). We dismissed his first subsequent habeas application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Gonzales, Nos. WR-70,969-01 and -02 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 1, 2012) (not designated for publication). After remanding a small portion of Applicant's second subsequent writ application, we denied relief on the remanded claim and dismissed the remainder. Ex parte Gonzales, No. WR-70,969-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 14, 2023) (not designated for publication)
The trial court ultimately scheduled Applicant's execution for June 26, 2024. On June 18, 2024, Applicant filed the instant habeas application, in which he raises two claims. Specifically, Applicant asserts that: (1) he does not pose a risk of danger to others and, thus, is not death-eligible; and (2) the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated where a State conditions death-eligibility on a prediction of future dangerousness, but fails to thereafter provide post-conviction review of the accuracy of that prediction.
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.