§

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.071

Section 11.071 - Procedure In Death Penalty Case
Section 11.071 - Procedure In Death Penalty Case

5 Citing briefs

  1. Prible v. Thaler

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Amended Answer, Responding to Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, with Brief in Support

    Filed December 17, 2012

    (04 SHCR (after remand) II: 803, para. 34, citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.071, § 5(a)(1).) After the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the convicting courts recommendations, it dismissed the application as abusive.

  2. Buck v. Stephens

    MOTION for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60

    Filed January 7, 2014

    The convicting court found the application to be “subsequent” under Article 11.071, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071 (West 2013), and referred it to the CCA. On November 20, 2013, the CCA dismissed Mr. Buck’s Application for “fail[ing] to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.

  3. BRIGGS v. BROWN

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Offices of the Federal Public Defenders for the Central and Eastern Districts of California

    Filed March 30, 2017

    > Permitting successive petitions for claims that could not reasonably have been raised at an earlier time, either because they are based on newly discovered evidence or new rules of constitutional law, is consonant with the practice of the majority of states with capital habeas regimes. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), (b); Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VD; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(2); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-14-51; Idaho Code Ann.§ 19-2719(5)(a); Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42(1); La. Code Cr. Proc. Ann. art. 930.4; Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105; State v. Ortiz, 670 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Neb. 2003); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(2); La. Belle v. Hancock, 108 A.2d 545, 546 (N.H. 1954); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 15A- 1419; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.23(A)(1); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1089(D)(8); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.5503); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(b); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-90; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117(a); Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 11.071(5)(a); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9- 106(1)(d); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(2); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 10.73.100; Wyo.Stat. Ann. § 7-14-103().

  4. Campbell v. Livingston et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

    Filed May 7, 2014

    See Ex parte Campbell, No. AP-76,907 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2012), Pet. App. A. The CCA, noting that “the law has further developed since applicant filed his last habeas application,” looked past the state procedural rule on successive state habeas applications, see Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 11.071 §5, and denied the claim on the merits. That denial was the basis for a petition for certiorari, which was also denied.

  5. Buck v. Stephens

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 6, 2005

    As noted above, Buck did not raise the instant claims until his second state habeas application, which was dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Buck, No. 57,004-02 at 2-19 & Order combined with No. 57,004-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 15, 2003) (per curiam) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.071 §5). Thus, the state court’s dismissal of his claims as an abuse of the writ precludes federal habeas relief as a matter of law.