Opinion
NO. WR-41,274-05
01-25-2017
EX PARTE ANTHONY SHAWN MEDINA
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 726088 IN THE 228TH DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. NEWELL , J., filed a concurring opinion in which KELLER , P.J., YEARY and WALKER , JJ., joined. ORDER
This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. --------
Applicant was convicted in August 1996 of capital murder. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(7). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial court sentenced him to death. Art. 37.071, § 2(g). This Court affirmed applicant's conviction on direct appeal. Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). This Court dismissed Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus as untimely filed. Ex parte Medina, WR-41,274-01 (Tex. Crim. App. April 28, 1999) (not designated for publication). This Court denied the -02 application and dismissed the -03 and -04 applications as abuses of the writ. Ex parte Medina, WR-41,274-02, -04 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 16, 2009) (not designated for publication); WR-41,274-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2005) (not designated for publication).
Applicant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. Medina v. Stephens, No. 4:09-CV-03223 (S. D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2009), Docket Entry No. 1. In August 2015, the federal district court stayed the proceedings, finding that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the state courts the first opportunity to consider unexhausted issues raised in the federal habeas petition. Id., Docket Entry No. 103. Applicant then filed this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on Dec. 16, 2015. In compliance with Article 11.071, § 5(b)(1), the convicting court forwarded this application to this Court.
We have reviewed this subsequent application and find that the allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Therefore, we dismiss this application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. Art. 11.071, § 5(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. Do Not Publish