From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hood v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 14, 2008
No. AP-71,167 (Tex. Crim. App. May. 14, 2008)

Opinion

No. AP-71,167

Delivered: May 14, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.

On Direct Appeal from Cause No. W296-80233-90 in the 296th District Court, Collin County.

PER CURIAM. HOLCOMB, J., would grant.


ORDER


This is a Motion to Stay Execution and Suspend Rules of Appellate Procedure to permit Rehearing of Direct Appeal. Applicant was convicted of the capital murder of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace. The jury answered the special issues in such a manner that a sentence of death was imposed on August 29, 1990. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Hood v. State, AP-71,167 (Tex.Crim.App. November 24, 1993) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 834 (1994). Applicant's initial application for writ of habeas corpus was denied. Ex parte Hood, WR-41,168-01 (Tex.Crim.App. April 21, 1999). Applicant filed a subsequent application in the trial court on May 24, 2004. The subsequent application was dismissed. Ex parte Hood, WR-41,168-02 (Tex.Crim.App. April 13, 2005). Applicant filed a second subsequent application on June 22, 2005. We remanded to the convicting court for resolution of the claim. When the case was returned to this Court we held that applicant had, in fact, not met the requirements of Article 11.071, Section 5, for consideration of subsequent claims and dismissed his application. Ex parte Hood, 211 S.W.3d 767 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Appellant now asks that we suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure and again review one of his claims he raised on direct appeal. We rejected that claim over 14 years ago because, procedurally, it did not meet the requirements of a properly briefed point of error and, in the alternative, because we found it to be without merit. Hood, AP-71,167 (slip op at 19-20). When the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 11, 1994, this appeal became final. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 does not allow this Court to create jurisdiction where none exists. See generally Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Appellant's motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2008.


Summaries of

Hood v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 14, 2008
No. AP-71,167 (Tex. Crim. App. May. 14, 2008)
Case details for

Hood v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DEAN HOOD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 14, 2008

Citations

No. AP-71,167 (Tex. Crim. App. May. 14, 2008)

Citing Cases

In re Roach

O n M ay 6, 2008, he moved this to reconsider his direct appeal, we denied the motion. Hood v. State, No.…

In re Hood

O n M ay 6, 2008, he moved this to reconsider his direct appeal, we denied the motion. Hood v. State, No.…