Taylor, Lee Andrew

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 14, 2011
• Docket: WR-58,375-02
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-58,375-02 EX PARTE LEE ANDREW TAYLOR

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

FROM CAUSE NO. 99F0504-202-B IN THE 202^ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BOWIE COUNTY

Per Curiam. Price, J., issued a dissenting statement which Johnson and Alcala, JJ., joined.

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.

In February 2000, 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. Taylor v. State, No. AP-73,739 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 11, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on November 30, 2001. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Taylor, No. WR-58,375-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2004)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this his first subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on June 14, 2011.

Applicant presents two allegations in his application. In his first allegation, applicant asserts that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. He further asserts that this Court should reach the merits of this claim because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel in his initial state habeas proceedings. In his second allegation, applicant asserts that his execution is barred by the Eighth Amendment because he was sixteen years old when he committed the offense which elevated the murder to capital murder. We have reviewed the application and find that applicant's allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, applicant's application is dismissed, and his motion to stay his execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JUNE, 2011.

Do Not Publish