Opinion
WR-26,178-04
03-07-2023
EX PARTE ARTHUR BROWN JR., Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 636535-C IN THE 351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS 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 November 1993, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a). The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Brown v. State, No. AP-71,817 (Tex. Crim. App. December 18, 1996) (not designated for publication). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Brown, No. WR-26,178-02 (Tex. Crim. App. June 18, 2008). And it denied relief on one claim and dismissed the remaining claims included in Applicant's first subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Brown, No. WR-26,178-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2017). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the trial court on March 1, 2023.
Ex parte Brown, No. WR-26,178-01, was an application for writ of mandamus, which this Court denied leave to file on March 23, 1994.
In his application, Applicant alleges that he is actually innocent (Claim 1); that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (Claim 2); that he is intellectually disabled (Claim 3); and that his trial was impermissibly influenced by racial bias (Claim 4). 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.