Opinion
NO. WR-62,099-06 NO. WR-62,099-07
08-11-2016
EX PARTE ROBERT LYNN PRUETT, Applicant
ON APPLICATIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. B-D1-MO15-PR-B IN THE 156 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT BEE COUNTY Per curiam. ALCALA, J., dissents. RICHARDSON, J., not participating. ORDER
These are subsequent applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5.
In April 2002, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Pruett v. State, No. AP-74,370 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2004)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in February 2004, and this Court subsequently denied relief. Ex parte Pruett, 207 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant filed a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on July 14, 2014. This Court dismissed the subsequent application because it failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5(a). Ex parte Pruett, No. WR-62,099-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 10, 2014)(not designated for publication). On April 1 and 8, 2015, applicant filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition and a petition for a writ of prohibition. This Court denied applicant leave to file the writ of prohibition on April 20, 2015.
On April 17, 2015, applicant filed in the trial court his second subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. In that application, applicant asserted that he was entitled to relief under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 because, had the results of DNA testing conducted pursuant to a Chapter 64 motion been available at the time of trial, it was likely that the jury would not have convicted him. This Court denied applicant relief on that application. Ex parte Pruett, 458 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
On April 20, 2015, applicant filed in the trial court a third subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. In that application, applicant claimed that he was entitled to relief under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 because of a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, which, he asserted, could have discredited the testimony of a State's witness regarding tape comparisons. Applicant claimed that if the report had been available, then the jury would not have convicted him. After reviewing the application, we determined that applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5 and Article 11.073(c), and we dismissed his application. Ex parte Pruett, 458 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
On March 14, 2016, applicant filed in the trial court his fourth subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus, and on July 14, 2016, he filed in the trial court his fifth subsequent application. In his fourth application, applicant asserts that he is actually innocent and that the State denied him due process by failing to disclose deals made with witnesses and failing to correct false testimony at trial. In his fifth application, he asserts that his due process right to a fundamentally fair trial was violated by the State's use of false forensic science testimony.
After reviewing applicant's applications, we find that he has failed in both cases to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed as abuses of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claims raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 11 DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. Do not publish