Diaz, Arturo Eleazar

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Diaz, Arturo Eleazar

DecidedSeptember 23, 2013

DocketWR-55,850-02

StatusPublished

This text of Diaz, Arturo Eleazar (Diaz, Arturo Eleazar) 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

Diaz, Arturo Eleazar, (Tex. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-55,850-02 EX PARTE ARTURO ELEAZAR DIAZ

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

FROM CAUSE NO. CR-1464-99-G IN THE 370^TH DISTRICT COURT

HIDALGO COUNTY

Per Curiam. Alcala, J., filed a concurring statement in which Cochran, J., joined. Price, J., filed a dissenting statement.

O R D E R

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

In February 2000, a jury found applicant guilty 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 applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Diaz v. State, No. AP-73,821 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on January 14, 2002. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Diaz, No. WR-55,850-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 18, 2003)(not designated for publication). Applicant's first subsequent application was filed in the trial court on September 19, 2013.

Applicant raises two claims in his subsequent writ application: that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the State's plea offer, and that trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. He further asserts that his initial habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issues in his initial writ application. After reviewing the application, this Court has determined that applicant has failed to meet the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims, and we deny applicant's motion to stay his execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.

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

NO. WR-55,850-02 EX PARTE ARTURO ELEAZAR DIAZ

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

FROM CAUSE NO. CR-1464-99-G IN THE 370^TH DISTRICT COURT

HIDALGO COUNTY

Per Curiam. Alcala, J., filed a concurring statement in which Cochran, J., joined. Price, J., filed a dissenting statement.

O R D E R

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

In February 2000, a jury found applicant guilty 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 applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Diaz v. State, No. AP-73,821 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on January 14, 2002. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Diaz, No. WR-55,850-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 18, 2003)(not designated for publication). Applicant's first subsequent application was filed in the trial court on September 19, 2013.

Applicant raises two claims in his subsequent writ application: that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the State's plea offer, and that trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. He further asserts that his initial habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issues in his initial writ application. After reviewing the application, this Court has determined that applicant has failed to meet the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims, and we deny applicant's motion to stay his execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Diaz, Arturo Eleazar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-arturo-eleazar-texcrimapp-2013.