Ex Parte Kerr

358 S.W.3d 248, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 591, 2011 WL 1644141
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 28, 2011
DocketWR-62402-03
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 248 (Ex Parte Kerr) 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
Ex Parte Kerr, 358 S.W.3d 248, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 591, 2011 WL 1644141 (Tex. 2011).

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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 March 2003, 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 applicant’s punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Kerr v. State, No. AP-74,637 (Tex.Crim.App. Jan. 12, 2005) (not designated for publication).

In October 2004, applicant filed in the trial court his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Kerr, No. WR-62,402-01 (Tex.Crim.App. Aug. 31, 2005) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed his first subsequent application in the trial court in August 2006. This Court dismissed that application because it failed to meet the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5. Ex parte Kerr, No. WR-62,402-02, 2006 WL 3735400 (Tex. Crim.App. Dec. 20, 2006) (not designated for publication). This, his second subsequent application, was filed in the trial court on April 27, 2011.

Applicant presents a single allegation in his application in which he asserts that his initial state habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel which ineffectiveness denied applicant a proper review of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. We have reviewed the application and find that applicant has failed to meet the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss his application and deny his motion for stay of execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PRICE, J., filed a dissenting statement in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

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

Related

Taylor, Lee Andrew
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011
Balentine, John Lezell
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011
Kerr v. Texas
179 L. Ed. 2d 1205 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Ex Parte Kerr
358 S.W.3d 248 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 S.W.3d 248, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 591, 2011 WL 1644141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-kerr-texcrimapp-2011.