Mosley, Daroyce Lamont

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mosley, Daroyce Lamont

DecidedAugust 28, 2007

DocketWR-27,818-05

StatusPublished

This text of Mosley, Daroyce Lamont (Mosley, Daroyce Lamont) 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

Mosley, Daroyce Lamont, (Tex. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-27,818-05 EX PARTE DAROYCE LAMONT MOSLEY ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 21,932-B FROM THE

124^TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY

Per Curiam. keasler, j., not participating.

ORDER

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts he is actually innocent of the capital murder for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

Applicant was convicted of capital murder on October 17, 1995. We affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). On October 9, 1997, applicant filed his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. While that application was pending in the convicting court he filed an untimely supplement on December 14, 1998. We denied relief on his initial application and dismissed the untimely supplement as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley WR-27,818-02 & 27,818-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 1999). On August 20, 2007, applicant filed a second subsequent application, we again dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley, WR-27,818-04 (Tex. Crim. App. August 21, 2007).

At trial, on appeal, in his initial application and in his subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised the issue of his actual innocence; the claim was rejected each time. Applicant again raises the same issue, that he did not shoot any of the four victims who died or the fifth victim who survived. We have reviewed this application and find that it does not meet the requirements for consideration of subsequent claims under Article 11.071, Section 5(a). This application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ; the motion for stay of execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2007.

Do Not Publish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-27,818-05 EX PARTE DAROYCE LAMONT MOSLEY ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 21,932-B FROM THE

124^TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY

Per Curiam. keasler, j., not participating.

ORDER

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts he is actually innocent of the capital murder for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

Applicant was convicted of capital murder on October 17, 1995. We affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). On October 9, 1997, applicant filed his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. While that application was pending in the convicting court he filed an untimely supplement on December 14, 1998. We denied relief on his initial application and dismissed the untimely supplement as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley WR-27,818-02 & 27,818-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 1999). On August 20, 2007, applicant filed a second subsequent application, we again dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley, WR-27,818-04 (Tex. Crim. App. August 21, 2007).

At trial, on appeal, in his initial application and in his subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised the issue of his actual innocence; the claim was rejected each time. Applicant again raises the same issue, that he did not shoot any of the four victims who died or the fifth victim who survived. We have reviewed this application and find that it does not meet the requirements for consideration of subsequent claims under Article 11.071, Section 5(a). This application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ; the motion for stay of execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2007.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mosley, Daroyce Lamont, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-daroyce-lamont-texcrimapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack