EX PARTE MABRY LANDOR III v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

EX PARTE MABRY J. LANDOR III, Applicant

NO. WR-81,579-01

Decided: November 01, 2016

Per curiam. KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion joined by KEASLER and HERVEY, JJ., ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion. RICHARDSON, J., filed a concurring opinion joined by KELLER, P.J., and KEASLER and HERVEY, JJ.

ORDER

This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071.

In April 2010, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. 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. Landor v. State, No. AP-76,328 (Tex. Crim. App. June 29, 2011) (not designated for publication).

In his application, applicant presents eleven grounds of error challenging the validity of his judgment and sentence. The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that the relief sought be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record regarding applicant's allegations. We reject: finding number 116; the portion of finding number 127 which states, “based on the lack of evidence that the applicant was using PCP at the time of the offense and the lack of evidence that his shooting and killing Officer Abernethy was the result of using PCP”; and the portion of conclusion number 6 which states, “in light of the jury being aware of the applicant's prior drug usage, and in light of the absence of any evidence, including the applicant's own statements, that applicant was using PCP at the time of the offense.” We otherwise adopt the trial court's findings and conclusions. We also note that grounds one, two, three, four, eight, ten, and eleven are procedurally barred. See Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866, 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Ex parte Nelson, 137 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Therefore, based upon the trial court's findings and conclusions that we have adopted and our own review of the record, we deny relief.

Copied to clipboard