Young, Clinton Lee

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Young, Clinton Lee

DecidedJune 3, 2009

DocketWR-65,137-03

StatusPublished

This text of Young, Clinton Lee (Young, Clinton Lee) 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

Young, Clinton Lee, (Tex. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-65,137-03 EX PARTE CLINTON LEE YOUNG

ON SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-27181 IN THE 385^TH DISTRICT COURT

MIDLAND 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.

Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder in March 2003. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Young v. State, No. 74,643 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1056 (2006). This Court denied Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus and first subsequent application. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-01 and No. WR-65,137-02 (Tex. Crim App. Dec. 20, 2006)(not designated for publication). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on April 3, 2009.

Applicant presents four allegations. We have reviewed the application and supporting documents and find that the following allegations satisfy the requirements for consideration of a subsequent application under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5:

Claim I: The prosecution's failure to produce exculpatory evidence, and the presentation of false testimony, violated applicant's constitutional rights.

Claim II: The prosecution's suppression of evidence concerning State witness A.P. Merillat violated applicant's constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court for consideration of these allegations. Applicant's remaining allegations are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2009.

Do Not Publish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-65,137-03 EX PARTE CLINTON LEE YOUNG

ON SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-27181 IN THE 385^TH DISTRICT COURT

MIDLAND 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.

Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder in March 2003. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Young v. State, No. 74,643 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1056 (2006). This Court denied Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus and first subsequent application. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-01 and No. WR-65,137-02 (Tex. Crim App. Dec. 20, 2006)(not designated for publication). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on April 3, 2009.

Applicant presents four allegations. We have reviewed the application and supporting documents and find that the following allegations satisfy the requirements for consideration of a subsequent application under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5:

Claim I: The prosecution's failure to produce exculpatory evidence, and the presentation of false testimony, violated applicant's constitutional rights.

Claim II: The prosecution's suppression of evidence concerning State witness A.P. Merillat violated applicant's constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court for consideration of these allegations. Applicant's remaining allegations are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2009.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Young, Clinton Lee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-clinton-lee-texcrimapp-2009.