Oliver, Khristian

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 30, 2009
• Docket: WR-53,682-03
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-53,682-03 EX PARTE KHRISTIAN OLIVER

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION TO STAY HIS EXECUTION

FROM CAUSE NO. 7901-98-5 IN THE 145^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY

Per Curiam. Keller, P.J., not participating.

O R D E R

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, and a motion to stay his execution.

In April 1999, 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. Oliver v. State, No. AP-73,837 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on January 9, 2002. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Oliver, No. WR-53,682-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2002)(not designated for publication). After the time to file the initial application had passed, applicant also filed in the trial court a document entitled, "Applicant's Objections to Disposition Without Evidentiary Hearing and Motion for Extension of Time to File Habeas Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." Because applicant attempted to raise two additional claims in this document, the Court concluded that it was a subsequent application. The Court reviewed the claims raised under Article 11.071, § 5, determined that they did not meet the dictates of the statute, and dismissed them. Ex parte Oliver, No. WR-53,682-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant's second subsequent application was filed in the trial court on October 26, 2009.

Applicant presents two allegations in his application. We have reviewed the application and find that applicant's allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed, and applicant's motion to stay his execution is denied. Applicant has also filed a motion to recuse the Presiding Judge. That motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009.

Do Not Publish

Price and Johnson, JJ., would dismiss the motion to recuse as moot.