Court Opinion

ID: 9812390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:39:35.760503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:54.787614
License: Public Domain

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.
In May 1992, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Campbell v. State, 910 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on April 23, 1997. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Campbell, No. WR-44,551-01 (Tex.Crim.App. Mar. 8, 2000)(not designated for publication). Application filed his first subsequent application in the trial court on May 28, 2003, in which he asserted that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because he was mentally retarded and that the jury should have determined the issue of mental retardation. This Court dismissed applicant’s first subsequent application. Ex parte Campbell, No. WR-44,551-02 (Tex.Crim.App. July 2, 2003)(not designated for publication). In his second subsequent ha-beas application, which was filed in the trial court on August 14, 2006, applicant raised Brady and actual innocence claims. This Court dismissed that application on April 25, 2007. Ex parte Campbell, 226 S.W.3d 418 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). Applicant’s third subsequent habeas application, in which he raised a Penry claim, was filed in the trial court on September 5, 2012. After filing and setting the application, the Court denied relief in an unpublished opinion. Ex parte Campbell, No. AP-76,907 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 7, 2012)(not designated for publication). The instant application was filed in the trial court on May 5, 2014.
In this application, applicant asserts that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, his execution will violate the Eighth Amendment. He further asserts that he was deprived of competent counsel in his initial writ application and that this Court should nonetheless consider his effective assistance of trial counsel claim.
We have reviewed the application and find that the allegations do not satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). Further, we decline to re-open the prior *927writ applications in which applicant previously raised these claims. Applicant’s motion to stay his execution is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALCALA, J., filed a dissenting statement in which PRICE, JOHNSON, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.