Opinion
NO. WR-81,583-02
09-23-2020
EX PARTE CORTNE MAREESE ROBINSON, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 09-0411-X IN THE 71ST DISTRICT COURT HARRISON COUNTY Per curiam. WALKER, J., did not particiate. ORDER
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.
Unless we specify otherwise, all references in this order to "Articles" refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. --------
On March 17, 2011, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder for killing eighty-two-year-old Frank Zabokrtsky in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery or burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(2). The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction on direct appeal and denied his initial Article 11.071 application for writ of habeas corpus. Robinson v. State, No. AP-76,535 (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2013) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Davis, No. WR-81,583-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 9, 2016) (not designated for publication). This Court received Applicant's subsequent post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus on December 3, 2019.
Applicant presents five allegations in the instant subsequent application. In Claim One, Applicant alleges that the State violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), when it knowingly elicited false and misleading testimony. In Claim Two, Applicant asserts that his sentence violates due process because the prosecution engaged in misconduct when it misattributed possession of a razor blade to Applicant. In Claim Three, Applicant contends that the State withheld favorable, material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In Claims Four and Five, Applicant alleges that his prior counsel were ineffective for failing to: (1) move to exclude evidence of co-defendant T.Y's sexual assault of Mrs. Zabokrtsky and to seek limiting instructions during both phases of trial; (2) investigate the razor blade incident and Renrick Taylor's testimony; and (3) challenge the State's expert on future dangerousness.
We have reviewed the subsequent application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the subsequent application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. In addition, we dismiss as moot the State's "Motion to Dismiss Subsequent Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Abusive."
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. Do Not Publish