EX PARTE CLEVE FOSTER (other)
Annotate this CaseIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-65,799-03
EX PARTE CLEVE FOSTER
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. C-1-009424-0839040-C
IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER ONE
TARRANT COUNTY
Per Curiam. Price, J., filed a dissenting statement in which Womack, J., joined.
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 February 2004, a jury found applicant guilty 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. Foster v. State, No. AP-74,901 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2006)(not designated for publication).
In November 2005, applicant filed in the trial court his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Foster, No. WR-65,799-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 21, 2007)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his first subsequent application in the trial court on December 22, 2010. This Court dismissed that application on December 30, 2010. Ex parte Foster, No. WR-65,799-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2010)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this his second subsequent application in the trial court on September 2, 2011.
In this application, applicant asserts that his trial counsel were ineffective; that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of capital murder when the evidence discovered post conviction is considered in combination with the evidence presented against him at trial; and that his initial state habeas counsel was ineffective in failing to raise these issues in applicant's 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 for stay of execution is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 12TH 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Do not publish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.
