Opinion
WR-65,627-05
11-15-2023
EX PARTE DAVID SANTIAGO RENTERIA, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 20020D00230 IN THE 327TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT EL PASO 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 October 2003, 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 on direct appeal, but reversed his sentence. See Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Applicant received a new punishment hearing in 2008, and a jury again answered the punishment questions in a manner requiring the judge to sentence him to death. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See Renteria v. State, No. AP-74,829 (Tex. Crim. App. May 4, 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 Renteria, No. WR-65,627-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2014) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Renteria, Nos. WR-65,627-02 and -03 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2014) (not designated for publication). The Court declared several guilt/innocence points raised in the -02 writ to constitute a subsequent writ and dismissed those claims as an abuse of the writ. Renteria, Nos. WR-65,627-02 and -03. Applicant's instant postconviction application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the trial court on November 8, 2023.
In his application, Applicant alleges that new evidence corroborating his duress defense sufficiently supports a showing of innocence and entitles him to a new trial. At the least, he asserts, it would have led any rational juror to reject future dangerousness. Applicant also claims that new evidence shows that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and improperly withheld from him material, exculpatory evidence. 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.