However, [ ]none of these issues warrants relief.”James Garrett Freeman v. State, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 3/16/2011) “Appellant’s capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(1) and his death sentence were affirmed; prosecutor arguments were either not improper or harmless, and the denial of his motion for a change of venue under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 31.

However, [ ]none of these issues warrants relief.”James Garrett Freeman v. State, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 3/16/2011) “Appellant’s capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(1) and his death sentence were affirmed; prosecutor arguments were either not improper or harmless, and the denial of his motion for a change of venue under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 31.

State trial court proceedings denounced as a "kangaroo court."Week ofOctober 4, 2010:In Favor of the Prosecution or WardenLee Andrew Taylor v. Thaler, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21429 (5th Cir 10/7/2010)(unpublished) "While juveniles (JUV) could not be sentenced to death, a JUV offense could be used to elevate murder to capital murder, and since an inmate received a death penalty for a murder he committed as an adult, the JUV conviction and its life sentence rendered him eligible for death under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(6)(B); habeas relief was denied." [via Lexisone]Ex parte Jedidiah Isaac Murphy, NO.

2009 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 12/14/2009) Relief denied on claims including: (A) shackling before the jury; (B) life/death qualification; (C) " admission of evidence tending to show that shoe prints at the scene of the Busken murder were similar to a pair of Nike shoes owned by Appellant;" (D) admission in to evidence a the calendar note held admissible as a recorded recollection (harmless error); (E) sufficiency; (F) admission of prior rape conviction; (G) State's penalty phase closing; (H) denigration of the Defendant in the State's closing; (I) Use of G-d in closing by the State; (J) use of the continuing threat aggravator; (K) instruction on mitigation; (L) iac for the defense closing " by all but conceding Appellant’s guilt of rape and sodomy;" (M) cumulative error; and (N) statutory review. [Evidence prof blog has more]Antonio Lee Williams v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1751 (Tex. Crim. App 12/16/2009) "Evidence was sufficient to sustain a capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 19.03 because defendant engaged in a continuous and uninterrupted chain of conduct over a very short period of time; a witness testified that when defendant was shooting victim 1, the shots were coming 'rapidly, nonstop, with no break'." [via Lexisone]Richard Lee Tabler v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub.

Anthony Castillo Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 12/14/2009) [Note: still reviewing.]Antonio Lee Williams v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1751 (Tex. Crim. App 12/16/2009) "Evidence was sufficient to sustain a capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 19.03 because defendant engaged in a continuous and uninterrupted chain of conduct over a very short period of time; a witness testified that when defendant was shooting victim 1, the shots were coming 'rapidly, nonstop, with no break'." [via Lexisone]Richard Lee Tabler v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub.

(3) Were the jury verdicts inconsistent and was the jury unanimous respecting the material facts supporting those verdicts?"Ronnie Joe Neal v. State, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 6/18/2008)Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) because it included defendant's own admissions and that of his accomplice that defendant raped and murdered the victim and fingerprint and DNA evidence implicating defendant.Ex parte Joseph Roland Lave, Jr., 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 6/25/2008) On remand from the Supreme Court, "we adhere to our retroactivity analysis in Keith and its holding that Crawford does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review in Texas state courts. We again dismiss this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus. . ..

LEXIS 7698 (Cal 6/26/2008) On automatic appeal from a death sentence for first degree murder and for the commission of a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years, judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) exclusion of asserted exculpatory evidence; 2) admission of certain pornographic magazines; 3) admission of "off-color" remarks concerning defendant; 4) instruction on consciousness of guilt (CALJIC No. 2.03); 5) cumulative error and prejudice; 5) claims related to the penalty phase; 6) asserted juror misconduct; and 7) general challenges to California's death penalty scheme.Ronnie Joe Neal v. State, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 6/18/2008)Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's capital murder conviction under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) because it included defendant's own admissions and that of his accomplice that defendant raped and murdered the victim and fingerprint and DNA evidence implicating defendant.Ex parte Joseph Roland Lave, Jr., 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 6/25/2008) On remand from the Supreme Court, "we adhere to our retroactivity analysis in Keith and its holding that Crawford does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review in Texas state courts. We again dismiss this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus. . ..

Those underlying claims are that he was denied due process of law when the trial court: (1) permitted an inspector with the United States Marshal Service near two prosecution witnesses, in view of the jury; and (2) admitted inadmissible, cumulative evidence.Sepulvado v. LA Bd of Pardons, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7002 (5th Cir 3/21/2006) (unpublished) Relief denied on "claims the State's clemency procedure violates the Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth (due process denial) Amendments."Cannady v. Dretke, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7162 (5th Cir 3/22/2006) (unpublished) Relief denied & COA denied on claims of: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; whether his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his defense of actual innocence was procedurally defaulted; the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing; and an ex post facto challenge to Texas Penal Code sec. 19.03(a)(6).Lave v. Dretke, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7173 (5th Cir 3/22/2006) A split panel of the Fifth Circuit denies relief on the retroactivity of Crawford v. Washington.Coble v. Dretke, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7171 (5th Cir 3/22/2006) Relief denied on whether the Texas special issues limited the ability of Billy Wayne Coble to present mitigating evidence.