Rc\ GOuzlar7-

D2>-J 

' '(~0 CV< b9)ll --'~ 6-~) 

. · LOCK tt7>Jl- 63-3 

· L~{) ev< to, Jl-'63-4 fiPI 1~~J 

~,9% ~~ln -153-s f!i'·iJg ~&M. 1Mll811r . : 

. v \.....Y~ ~C/J l ~ "8:,- ( n P ~~--·~ §~mtmt contains ~~«r _ ov I (a I g f

L ({\ ex. 10 J 7 -.. 

8

. ~ =-J· 't' --~p~~ ~Hat~~~ of P~9uantt ") · o 1 ; ··I ' 

\.J at the hm~ of unagmg 

. 

· ~ CH~ef U~~·ve ~, ~~ kiHtr~ ~ v ~ b VI1\K_ (Auv<Vr, . .. . ' ~ . .. 

· .. _ Yny KWOf. l;t.vGl (1). ~S Nt\/~ ;:subVl'1.t

TtlO t() ~ .~ vtKt [;()·-0Co-tJ(). y/KJX)~ ·1\) 

\J f{jUO I ·V\A\J lAA-VJ r-=IM CQN vt cr-f-{)N \liNt? (JV!i:

c::JJvt~ HttO .Q0~~uy) JO~Y\J~lo vn:

~lLtR:D~5 (_y?itllf1?J1\l35) ffi H~ IJQcver~-

· .. n-~-J ~WN~c.Jft~- ..... ~:.: . 

. ···c ~·····~\AMJf cLJkW·CJ}tV<(feS,' 0~ 

G -eN t-10xrl CdQ \JAIJ & ~ L ts G\1 vtl o t01{)Jf 

. \---{~ \--{Cdb-)~6~ly· ~~ my VL&16 ~ tJ e'b··H 00!7\'5 

vce-~e C "-N'CJ\if

1'-J(J.r- 3rt.:t:M· voc· ~lv *3'VhN:SJ 

I 
~ , . ' . 

· VVI \ \JJJ)/1 vtt-no \i Gt~ ru 

\l · \ vrrU\ tJ ~'F rt"i \It) 1 UA\J m~ ~1Vfl(" ~ N~ f.tr\A \fL,.QN ~· , 

fKt~ CA\\AJ'Zif ~)~ ~ CJOV1V<r 

~ Vlho ( ... UA-f'J ~~vr D~ ~ t · }tq0vt0C\07 ~· Wv<JVIj(ft-{K 

y?~c._K02>· . 'J ' . 

, · D }8VI-JC£Vti ly ~ l()n-vt"< 

~ ~f ~ V1N0 no vtY \0 tlO 1---W !t:J 

- XNS . ~· ~ G vt1 V~J '1\)}J 

I CJ:J\Jl)\J!Y_'O,yt:. ~)CV2~/ ~~~ 

1WV1/t1 ( WJO~CYIJ1 .. . UJ~ ~~ 

~'i)\--100~ Y1-1· ~eJt1< \fhaVJlGt1/J 

vfN Vc} v<K \) r:kVJ 6Q .td ' GJ~r b 

CDA0 ~ \tV1& ~3 .r:::::::::::::\ ======--

CJ l CMi W ~GofVv' f-t1 
~-----------~~~" 

,-

_) 

Ex parte Tommy Lee DORA 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

548 S.W.2d 392; 1977 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1217 

No. 3802 

February 16, 1977 

Counsel Arthur R. Howard. Lubbock. for appellant. 

Alton R. Griffin. Dist.Atty .. and John Terrell. Asst.Dist.Atty .. 

Lubbock, Jim D. Vollers. State's Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the 

State. 

Judges: Roberts. Judge. 

CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner challenged the decision of the District Court of Lubbock County 

(Texas), which denied his second application for writ of habeas corpus because no new issues were 

raised.Application for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with prejudice because petitioner had made no 

effort to allege any new issues that had not been raised in a previous application. 

OVERVIEW: Petitioner was convicted of robbery and given an enhanced sentence based on a prior 

conviction. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus regarding the validity of the prior conviction 

was denied because it raised no new grounds and raised the same questions that were raised in a 

previous application. Petitioner sought review and the court affirmed. The court found that petitioner made 

no effort to allege that the instant allegations were not ones that had been raised, or could have been 

raised, in any earlier proceeding. The court dismissed the application with prejudice because petitioner 

had not attempted to make a showing of good cause for allowing are-filing of the application. 

OUTCOME: The court dismissed petitioner's second application for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. 

The court agreed with the trial court that no new issues were raised which warranted further consideration. 

LexisNexis Head notes 

Criminal Law & Procedure > Habeas Corpus > Review > Standards of Review> General Overview 

Where a petitioner has been previously cited for an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial court 

should not thereafter consider the merits of any application for writ oi habeas corpus filed by that 

petitioner. The trial court should, however, review the application and make findings that this petitioner has 

_ abused the writ in the past, thus making the review procedure of the appeals court more efficient. 

Opinion 

Opinion by: ROBERTS 

3txcases 

Q 2015 Ma«hew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to 

the restpc:tions and tenns and conditions of the Matthew Bender Mastet:,'Agreement. 

... · 

. . ( 

, .. 

.. 

- \ \ \ 

.. r.~-~~·· 

-.eo.- • , -

1 

----·-I--1\-rr-cc--r~~~\ /J 6 ~ : 1"-...N r 'V ~.1~'¥1. . 01 1 

~t:J\Jf! V<AALt~ <QN,cc~{)~r0\l! 

l~ lt-~3-4rrL\)~)d, \1 ~3-:S I 

-~?>-- Opinion 

{548 S.W.2d 393) This is an application for writ of habeas corpus which was submitted to this Court 

by the trial court, pursuant to the.provisions of Art. 11.07, VAC.C.P. 

.. Petitioner was convicted for the offense of burglary, enhanced under Art. 63, VAP.C., in the Criminal 

District Court of Dallas County and assessed thii mandatory liie sente'nce in ihe penitentiary on 

December 4, 1970. Petitioner's direct appeal from this Dallas conviction was affirmed. See Dora v. 

State, 477- S.W2d 20 (Tex.Cr.App_ 1972). 

Peffi[oner filed an:application}or writ of tiatlea~ corp'us in the District Co~rt of Lubbock ~ounty, 

complaining.of the validity of a 1962_Lubbock.County convictio_n for burglary, which Y'as su.bsequently 

used for enhancement in the above-mentioned Dallas County case. The trial court denied the 

application for writ of habeas corpus, finding that this application for writ of habeas corpus relief 

"raises no new grounds and raises the same questions raised in the first application for writ of habeas 

corpus" which was previously denied on February 7, 197 4. 

From a review of petitioner's writ filed in this Court, it is to be noted that this Court entered a per 

curiam order on July B, 1975, in which we held: 

"Under the circumstances presented in this case, we are of the opinion that petitioner has abused 

the habeas corpus process by continually raising the same claims, over and over again, in his 

postconviction writs. We hold that petitioner's contention has thus been waived and abandoned 

by his abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte·Can, 511 S.W.2d 623 [523] (Tex.Cr.App. 

1974), and Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, B3 S. Ct.'106B [10 LEd. 2d 14.8] (1963), and 

cases cited therein."Therefore, in view of this holding, we hereby refuse to accept or file 

petitioner's {548 S. W.2d 394} instant application for writ of habeas corpus, and the clerk of this 

Court is hereby ordered not to accept in the future any poSt-conviction application for writ ol 

habeas corpus from this petitioner until it is first shown that such contention was not one that has 

been raised, or could have been raised, in any earlier proceeding. Until such showing is made, 

petitioner's contention is not entitled to consideration." (Emphasis supplied) 

In the instant case, the trial court has found that "no new issues" were raised which warranted further 

consideration of this second petition. We agree. Petitioner has made no effort to allege that the 

instant allegations were not ones that had been raised, or could have been raised, in any earlier · 

proceeding. Absent such a showing of good cause for permitting the filing of such application, we 

decline to file this application, or consider the merits of same. 

Where a petitioner has been previously cited for an "abuse of the Great Writ," the trial court should not 

thereafter consider the merits of any application for writ of habeas corpus filed by that petitioner. The 

trial court should, however, review the application and make findings that this petitioner has abused 

3txcases 

Cl2015 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to 

the restrictions and tenns and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement. 
I t .• •• • I -~-~::.·---'·-----, ' . I 

- __ / - I ~ ~ ':.(· ~" ~... l 

. .. . I -:· _; - '· , ~ I 

the writ in the pasT. thus making the review procedure of this Court more efficient. The. transcript 

should be forwarded to this <::our!. just as in all other cases. pursuant to our automatic review 

jurisdiction. See Art. 11.07"·Sec. 2{a), supra. The writ transcript should, of course, be forwarded to 

this Court within fifteen·aays of-thE'! trial court's order. See Art. 11.07, Sec. 2(c), supra. 

... /. 

Uoon.receipt of the writ tra~'script from t!le trial court, this Court'shaUreview the petitione(s.alle1)Btions• 

e Tor aliowmQareJllmoJ>llbe abpllC8tiOH. ana n peUUoner has .¥stated .facts. which, I 

Jnie~·would.entitle'him:to·reliefj-':·then]hTsCourt wlii.order.the.petitlon·flied[ana;conside_\~~'!;:. 

~ . ' • .. ·.·.y··~---

<"""·· ""' 

..,._ " ~w '-r1"."'">' 

If. however, the petitioner has not stated sufficient "good cause·: for allowing a re-filing of the petition, 

or if the factual allegations concerning good cause are clearly without merit upon their face, then the 

petition shall not be fil~d or ,Cfi_nsipered henceforth by this Court. 1 

In the case at bar, the petitioner,.not having attempted to make a showing of "good cause" for allowing 

are-filing of this application.;the ap'plication is ordered dismissed with prejudice. No further 

applications will be entertained. ..,. 

...... :_...,., 

-... .... . 

·.·j 

·i· 

. 

l- ,' ' ~ . . t~' 

Footnotes 

The writ·application tfans~iipt'i.tself willib€-kl!pt on1JI~-a~~pait ofthefp!irm'anent'business 'recordS: of 

fthis·£0U'rt! . r- , :). ·. ~ . ..•. '\ . ; 

.... 

-..: ' 

1: .. 4'" 

-, .. \ .· ~·· .. , ·. .---:. 

•' '. ~ ~ ,; 

J.' 

~ 

3txcases 3 • 

C 2015 Matthew Bender & Company, l~c . ."~ ll]ember of~~;.LexisNexis Group.' All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to 

~the restrictions and terms and conditions of the MStt~ew Bender Master Agreement. 

: .. 

,j 

T 

I 

I 

i 

I 

! 

j 

i 

i 

~ i 

i 

\ I 

.... l 

.r' 

'' 

·' 

..... 1- •• ::- I· !.. 

(j c ~ a'O! u4- c~.~x. ao1 

JV{kQCd!V1i ~T.tc~, G-\..4-31~ 

c; -La~ tal/ G -L'$C-u:;r~ .. · 

7 

~!{ ~'J rt-'\!J ·t ~!Vt1