Ex Parte Tucker

973 S.W.2d 950, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 13, 1998 WL 28104
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 28, 1998
DocketWrit 21159-03
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 973 S.W.2d 950 (Ex Parte Tucker) 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 Tucker, 973 S.W.2d 950, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 13, 1998 WL 28104 (Tex. 1998).

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Art. 11.071, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P.

On April 19, 1984, applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. After the jury returned affirmative answers to the special issues, punishment was assessed at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction on direct appeal. Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). The trial court has scheduled applicant’s execution to take place on February 3, 1998.

In the instant cause, applicant presents nine allegations. We have reviewed the application and find it fails to satisfy the requirements of Art. 11.071, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P., and accordingly dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ. We also deny applicant’s request for a stay of execution.

MEYERS, J., joins with note. I write to point out that even if applicant met one of the exceptions provided for in Sec. 5 of Article 11.071, her claims are not cognizable. Applicant claims the clemency/commutation procedures provided for in this state are so inadequate as to violate her due process rights. But there are no constitutional rights pertaining to clemency. Clemency proceedings do not create a liberty interest and thus federal due process rights are not implicated. Connecticut Bd. of Pardons and Paroles v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 101 S.Ct. 2460, 69 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981).

With these observations, I join the court’s dismissal of applicant’s petition.

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

Related

Ricks, Cedric Allen
Texas Supreme Court, 2015
Workman v. State
22 S.W.3d 807 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)
Villegas v. Johnson
Fifth Circuit, 1999
Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Williams
976 S.W.2d 207 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Ex Parte Tucker
973 S.W.2d 950 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
973 S.W.2d 950, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 13, 1998 WL 28104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-tucker-texcrimapp-1998.