Woods, Steven Michael AKA Halo

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 2, 2011
DocketWR-62,627-02
StatusPublished

This text of Woods, Steven Michael AKA Halo (Woods, Steven Michael AKA Halo) 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
Woods, Steven Michael AKA Halo, (Tex. 2011).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. WR-62,627-02
EX PARTE STEVEN MICHAEL WOODS


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

IN CAUSE NO. F-2002-0541-E

IN THE 367TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DENTON COUNTY

Per Curiam.

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 August 2002, a jury convicted applicant 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. Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

In September 2004, applicant filed in the trial court his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. After filing and setting the case, this Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Woods, 176 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant filed this his first subsequent application in the trial court on September 1, 2011.

Applicant appears to present two allegations in his application. In the first, he claims that he was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury, and in the second, he asserts that his initial state habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to properly raise the first claim in his initial habeas application. We have reviewed the application and find that applicant's allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims. Applicant's motion to stay his execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011.



Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Woods
176 S.W.3d 224 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Woods v. State
152 S.W.3d 105 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woods, Steven Michael AKA Halo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-steven-michael-aka-halo-texcrimapp-2011.