EX PARTE STEVEN MICHAEL WOODS (other)

Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window













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Do Not Publish

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.