Arthur, Mark Sam

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 14, 2005
DocketWR-63,522-01
StatusPublished

This text of Arthur, Mark Sam (Arthur, Mark Sam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur, Mark Sam, (Tex. 2005).

Opinion

       IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                   OF TEXAS

                                                             NO. WR-63,522-01

                                               EX PARTE MARK SAM ARTHUR

                  ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE

                        NO. 763189A IN THE 180TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

                                                             HARRIS COUNTY

Per Curiam. 

                                                                     O R D E R

This is a post conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.


On December 17, 1997, a jury convicted applicant 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 punishment at death.  This Court affirmed applicant=s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.  Arthur v. State, No. 73,045 (Tex. Crim. App. delivered Mar. 15, 2000)(not designated for publication).

Applicant presents three allegations in his application in which he challenges the validity of his conviction and resulting sentence.  Although an evidentiary hearing was not held, the trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The trial court recommended that relief be denied on applicant=s first allegation and that his second and third allegations be dismissed as moot.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegations made by applicant.  We adopt the trial judge=s findings and conclusions.  Based upon the trial court=s findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought on allegation one is denied and allegations two and three are dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2005.

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arthur, Mark Sam, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-mark-sam-texcrimapp-2005.