Opinion
WR-78 124-03
09-20-2021
EX PARTE RICK ALLAN RHOADES, Applicant
DO NOT PUBLISH
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION FROM CAUSE NO. 612408 IN THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT HARRIS 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 October 1992, a jury convicted Applicant of the September 1991 murder of two brothers committed during the same transaction. 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. Art. 37.071 § 2(g). This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We also denied relief on Applicant's initial writ of habeas corpus application. Ex parte Rhoades, No. WR-78, 124-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2014) (not designated for publication).
On August 9, 2021, Applicant filed in the trial court the instant writ application in which he raises three claims. In his first claim, Applicant asserts that his constitutional rights were violated by the State's use of Royce Smithey's false testimony. In his second claim, Applicant asserts that his constitutional rights were violated by the trial court's refusal at the punishment phase to admit childhood pictures of him into evidence. And in his third claim, Applicant asserts that "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" prohibit executions as a punishment for murder.
We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to make a prima facie showing on any of his allegations. Therefore, the allegations do not satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claim raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). We deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.