Opinion
NO. WR-78,135-03
03-09-2016
EX PARTE CHARLES VICTOR THOMPSON
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 782657 IN THE 262ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam. 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 April 1999 of capital murder committed on April 30, 1998. 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 but vacated the sentence and remanded the cause for a new hearing on punishment. Thompson v. State, 93 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). At the retrial on punishment, the jury answered the special issues as before, and applicant was again sentenced to death. We affirmed the sentence on direct appeal. Thompson v. State, No. AP-73,431, slip op. at 7 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2007) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed post-conviction applications from the initial trial and the punishment retrial. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Thompson, Nos. WR-78,135-01, WR-78,135-02 (Tex. Crim. App. April 1 7, 2013) (not designated for publication). Applicant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. Thompson v. Thaler, No. 4:13-CV-01900 (S. D. Tex. April 15, 2014), Docket Entry No. 21. The federal district court stayed the proceedings, finding that Applicant had shown good cause for his failure to raise unexhausted, potentially meritorious claims in prior state habeas proceedings. Id., Docket Entry No. 52. Applicant then filed this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on Sept. 24, 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 1 1.071, § 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 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. Do Not Publish