McGowen, Roger Wayne

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McGowen, Roger Wayne

DecidedSeptember 13, 2006

DocketWR-64,992-01

StatusPublished

This text of McGowen, Roger Wayne (McGowen, Roger Wayne) 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

McGowen, Roger Wayne, (Tex. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-64,992-01 & WR-64,992-02 EX PARTE ROGER WAYNE MCGOWEN

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 448450 IN THE 339^th 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 Article 11.071, Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

In June 1987, applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. McGowen v. State, No. 69,855 slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 1992)(unpublished).

Applicant presents two allegations in his application in which he challenges the validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. The trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge recommended relief be denied.

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 is denied.

This Court has also reviewed a document entitled "Amended Application for Writ for Habeas Corpus." Applicant presents ten allegations in this "amended" application. Because this document was filed after the deadline provided for an initial application for habeas corpus, we find it to be a subsequent application. See Art. 11.071. We further find that the allegations fail to meet one of the exceptions provided for in Section 5 of Article 11.071 and, thus, we dismiss this subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. In dismissing the subsequent application, we also expressly reject all findings and conclusions related to the claims presented therein.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13th DAY OF September , 2006.

Do Not Publish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-64,992-01 & WR-64,992-02 EX PARTE ROGER WAYNE MCGOWEN

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 448450 IN THE 339^th 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 Article 11.071, Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

In June 1987, applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. McGowen v. State, No. 69,855 slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 1992)(unpublished).

Applicant presents two allegations in his application in which he challenges the validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. The trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge recommended relief be denied.

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 is denied.

This Court has also reviewed a document entitled "Amended Application for Writ for Habeas Corpus." Applicant presents ten allegations in this "amended" application. Because this document was filed after the deadline provided for an initial application for habeas corpus, we find it to be a subsequent application. See Art. 11.071. We further find that the allegations fail to meet one of the exceptions provided for in Section 5 of Article 11.071 and, thus, we dismiss this subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. In dismissing the subsequent application, we also expressly reject all findings and conclusions related to the claims presented therein.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13th DAY OF September , 2006.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McGowen, Roger Wayne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowen-roger-wayne-texcrimapp-2006.