## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-82,566-01; WR -82,566-02; WR-82,566-03; WR-82,566-04;

WR-82,566-06; WR-82,566-07

EX P ARTE ISAIAS L UJAN P ALACIOS, App licant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. CR36475A; CR36477A ; CR26475B; C R26477B; CR36475C; CR36477C

IN THE 142 DISTRICT COURT FROM MIDLAND C OUNTY

N D

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated assault and sentenc ed to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment in both of these cause numbers. The Eleve nth Court of Appea ls a ffirme d his c onviction. Parks v. State , Nos. 11-11-00084- CR & 11-11-000850CR (Tex

. App.—Eastland April 11, 2013)(not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed these applications for writs of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwar d ed t h em t o this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On J anuar y 28, 2015, this Court denied application numbers WR -82,566-01 & WR -82,566- 02 based on the finding s o f the trial court without a hear ing. On Fe bruar y 18, 2015, this Court2

denied application numbers WR -82,566-03 & WR -82,566-04 based on the finding s of the trial court without a hear ing. On Fe bruar y 23, 2022, this Court rec eived a third set of applications, WR -82,566- 06 & WR -82,566-07 in the same tr i al court cause numbers alleg ing that there was prosec utorial misconduct in the revie w of his initial two sets of habea s applica t i o n s i n M idland County

. I t has been deter

mined that former assistant district attorney Ralph Petty was paid by the district judge s to work on Applicant’s ear lier 11.07 applications at the same time as he was employ ed as an appellate prosec utor by the Midland County District Attorney ’s o ffice

. That dual employ ment was not disclosed to this Court or Applicant at the time his ear lier applications were unde r consider ation. Whil e it does not appea

r that Petty ’s dual employ

ment aff ecte d the pre- trial, trial, or appellate proce eding s in Applicant’s case , the undisclosed employ ment rela t i o n s h i p b etwee n the District J ud ge who presided over the initial habea s proce eding s in this case and the prosec utor who simult aneously repr esente d the State in the same proce eding leads us to conclude that Applicant was deprive d of his due proc ess rig hts to fair c onsideration of his cla ims in t he first two sets of ha beas applications. There fore , this Court now rec onsiders on its own motion the denials without wr itten order on the finding s of the trial court of application numbers WR -82,566-01; WR -82,566-02; WR

82,566-03 & WR -82,566-04. Howeve r, afte r an independe nt revie w of the rec ords in these case s without consideration of the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, this Court believes that Applicant’s claims

are ref uted by those rec ords. Ther efor e, af ter re consideration on the Court’s own motion, relief is ag ain denied in cause numbers WR -82,566-01; WR -82,566-02; WR -82,566-03 & WR -82,566-04. Applicant’s third s et of applications, cause numbers WR -82,566-06 & WR -82,566-07 are dismiss ed as moot.3

Filed: Mar ch 30, 2022 Do not publish