EX PARTE BROADNAX v. << (2026)

ORDER

We have before us a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5 and a motion to stay Applicant's execution.¹

In August 2009, a jury convicted Applicant of capital murder for the 2008 murder of Stephen Swan committed in the course of committing robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, the trial court sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Broadnax v. State, No. AP-76,207 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2011) (not designated for publication).

This Court subsequently denied Applicant relief on his initial Article 11.071 writ application and dismissed two subsequent applications as abuses of the writ. Ex parte Broadnax, No. WR-81,573-01 (Tex. Crim. App. May 20, 2015) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Broadnax, No. WR-81,573-02 (Tex. Crim. App. June 7, 2023) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Broadnax, No. WR-81,573-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 6, 2025) (not designated for publication). In July 2025, Applicant asked this Court to reconsider its resolution of the Batson claim he raised in his -02 writ application, based on “new evidence” he obtained by reviewing the jury selection of co-defendant Demarius Cummings's trial. We declined the invitation on November 6, 2025.

On March 23, 2026, Applicant filed in the trial court this, his third subsequent writ application. Therein, he raises five claims, alleging that: (1) the State secured his conviction and sentence using false evidence; (2) he is actually innocent; (3) he was not eligible for the death penalty; (4) his death sentence was not individualized; and (5) the State's exercise of certain peremptory challenges violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to show that his allegations satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of his claims. See Art. 11.071 § 5(c). We deny Applicant's motion to stay his execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All references to “articles” in this order refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure unless otherwise specified.

Per curiam.

Parker, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Finley, J., joined.