EX PARTE JUAN JOSE REYNOSO (other)

Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 
OF TEXAS 

WR-66,260-02 
EX PARTE JUAN JOSE REYNOSO 
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 941651 IN THE 263rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 
HARRIS 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 May 2004. 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. Reynoso v. State, No. AP-74,952 (Tex. Crim. App. December 14, 2005). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Reynoso, 257 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Applicant's instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on March 29, 2010.

The record reflects that Applicant is currently challenging his conviction in Cause No. 4:09-cv-02103, styled Juan Jose Reynoso v. Rick Thaler, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The record also reflects that the federal district court has entered an order staying its proceedings for Applicant to return to state court to consider his current unexhausted claims. Therefore, this Court may exercise jurisdiction to consider this subsequent state application. See Ex parte Soffar,143 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Applicant presents one allegation in the instant application. We have reviewed the application, and we find that the allegation fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, 5(a). Accordingly, the application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071, 5(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010.

Do Not Publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.