EX PARTE TAICHIN PREYOR (other)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 
OF TEXAS 

NOS. WR-72,660-01 AND WR-72,660-02
EX PARTE TAICHIN PREYOR
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE
NO. 2004-CR-3602 IN THE 290TH DISTRICT COURT 
BEXAR COUNTY 
Per Curiam.
O R D E R

These are post conviction applications for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.

In March 2005, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder committed in February 2004. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.0711, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Preyor v. State, No. AP-75,119 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2008)(not designated for publication). On November 30, 2007, applicant, through appointed counsel, timely filed in the trial court his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. On December 1, 2008, applicant, through retained counsel, filed another application for writ of habeas corpus. Both of Applicant's writs were received in this Court on September 9, 2009. In his initial writ, applicant presents 11 allegations challenging the validity of his conviction and resulting sentence. The trial court held a live evidentiary hearing in which no evidence was presented. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the relief sought be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegations made by applicant. We adopt the trial judge's findings and conclusions with the exception of finding no. 1 on page 15, which we explicitly reject. Based upon the trial court's findings and conclusions and our own review, we deny relief.

Applicant's December 1, 2008 filing is a subsequent application that must be reviewed under Article 11.071, Section 5(a). We have reviewed the five claims which allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Applicant's claims fail to meet the dictates of Article 11.071, 5. Accordingly, we dismiss his subsequent application.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009.

Do Not Publish