Canales, Anibal Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Canales, Anibal Jr.

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketWR-54,789-02

StatusPublished

This text of Canales, Anibal Jr. (Canales, Anibal Jr.) 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

Canales, Anibal Jr., (Tex. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-54,789-02 EX PARTE ANIBAL CANALES

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 99-F-506-5 IN THE 5^TH DISTRICT COURT

BOWIE COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

In November, 2000, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). This Court denied Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Canales, No. WR-54,789-01 (Tex. Crim. App. March 12, 2003). On June 29, 2007, this Court received the instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in which applicant raises thirteen allegations challenging the validity of his conviction and the resulting sentence. In an effort to determine if the instant application is barred by Article 11.071, § 5, we ordered both parties to brief the following issues:

(1) Is Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 527 (2003), new law or such an extension of old law that this Court should hold that it meets the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5?

(2) If Wiggins is new law or such an extension of old law that it should meet the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5, under what standard should a court judge the effectiveness of counsel's actions undertaken before the decision in Wiggins was announced?

We have reviewed the application and the briefs of both parties and find that all of the allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071, § 5(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008.

Do Not Publish

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

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-54,789-02 EX PARTE ANIBAL CANALES

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 99-F-506-5 IN THE 5^TH DISTRICT COURT

BOWIE COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

In November, 2000, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). This Court denied Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Canales, No. WR-54,789-01 (Tex. Crim. App. March 12, 2003). On June 29, 2007, this Court received the instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in which applicant raises thirteen allegations challenging the validity of his conviction and the resulting sentence. In an effort to determine if the instant application is barred by Article 11.071, § 5, we ordered both parties to brief the following issues:

(1) Is Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 527 (2003), new law or such an extension of old law that this Court should hold that it meets the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5?

(2) If Wiggins is new law or such an extension of old law that it should meet the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5, under what standard should a court judge the effectiveness of counsel's actions undertaken before the decision in Wiggins was announced?

We have reviewed the application and the briefs of both parties and find that all of the allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071, § 5(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Canales, Anibal Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canales-anibal-jr-texcrimapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack