Teeter, Louis Wayne

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 4, 2012
• Docket: WR-76,667-01
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-76,667-01

EX PARTE LOUIS WAYNE TEETER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 07 CR 0692 F (S4) IN THE 214TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of attempted capital murder, two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer, and one count of violation of a protective order. He was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty, twenty, and ten years, respectively. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Teeter v. State, No. 13-07-00578-CR (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg July 23, 2009). This Court granted Applicant's petition for discretionary review, held that he received multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and reversed the court of appeals's judgment affirming one of the aggravated assault convictions. Teeter v. State, No. PD-1169-09, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1206 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2010).

In an application filed in Nueces County on March 2, 2011, Applicant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. On November 9, he filed an amended application in Nueces County. On October 24, 2011 and December 28, 2011, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its October 24 order, the trial court recommended that we deny Applicant's March 2 application, and in its December 28 order, it recommended that we either deny Applicant's amended application on the merits or dismiss it under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4. The trial court also found that Applicant's amended application was brought for the purpose of abusing judicial resources and recommended that we enter an abuse of the writ order against Applicant.

We decline to adopt the trial court's October 24 and December 28 findings and conclusions. We also find that Applicant's amended application is not barred under § 4. "If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is filed after final disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application" meets one of the exceptions set out in § 4. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a)(1)(2); Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 471-72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Although Applicant's amended application was filed after the trial court made its October 24 findings and conclusions, his application was not filed after a "final disposition." This Court had not decided the merits of the claims in Applicant's March 2 application.

Based on this Court's independent review of the entire record, we conclude that Applicant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by counsel's conduct at trial. "The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Relief is denied.

Filed: April 4, 2012

Do not publish