Court Opinion

ID: 9659522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:48:46.528741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:09.147312
License: Public Domain

ORDER

PER CURIAM.
This is a subsequent application for ha-beas corpus in which applicant advances an Eighth Amendment claim, asserting that he might suffer pain during the administration of the chemicals during lethal injection.
Applicant was convicted of capital murder on April 9, 1994. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. O’Brien v. State, no. 71,859 (Tex.Crim.App. May 15, 1996). On December 16, 1997, applicant filed his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. On August 23, 2001, applicant filed a supplemental application for writ of habeas corpus. We denied relief on his initial application and dismissed, as an abuse of the writ, his untimely subsequent application. Ex parte O’Brien, No. WR-51,264-01, WR-51,264-02 (Tex.Crim.App. February 6, 2002). On May 15, 2006, we issued a stay of the execution to review applicant’s second subsequent application for writ of ha-beas corpus.
*678We have now reviewed this subsequent application and find that it should be dismissed. Our order of May 15th, 2006, staying the proceedings in this case is lifted.
COCHRAN, J., filed a concurring statement in which KELLER, P.J., and KEASLER and HERVEY, JJ„ joined.
PRICE, J. filed a dissenting statement in which HOLCOMB, J., joined.
JOHNSON, J., filed a dissenting statement.
WOMACK, J., dissents.