EX PARTE WILLIAM EARL RAYFORD v. <<

ResetAA Font size: Print

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

EX PARTE WILLIAM EARL RAYFORD, Applicant

NO. WR-63,201-02

    Decided: January 26, 2018

Hervey, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Keller, P.J., and Keasler and Newell, JJ., joined. Alcala, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Walker, J., joined.

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 December 2000, a jury found applicant guilty of the 1999 capital murder of Carol Hall. 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. Rayford v. State, 125 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Applicant raised twelve allegations in his initial application for a writ of habeas corpus, including allegations that: the State sponsored false testimony, his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; the trial court violated his right to present mitigating evidence; he was denied his right to remain silent; and the Eighth Amendment barred the execution of mentally ill persons like himself. This Court adopted the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied relief on applicant's claims. Ex parte Rayford, No. WR-63,201-01 (Tex. Crim. App. May 24, 2006)(not designated for publication).

On January 19, 2018, applicant filed the instant application in the trial court. This is applicant's first subsequent writ of habeas corpus application. Applicant raises five claims in his application. Specifically, he asserts that

(1) his due process rights were violated when a State's witness presented false testimony encouraging the jury to consider his race when determining whether he was a future danger;

(2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing when his trial attorney elicited testimony linking race to dangerousness;

(3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys failed to investigate and present available mitigation evidence that he has brain damage from lead poisoning;

(4) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys failed to investigate and present available evidence that he did not kidnap Ms. Hall; and

(5) executing him after seventeen years on death row, and nearly twenty years after the crime, violates the Eighth Amendment.

After reviewing applicant's writ application, we find that he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claims, and we deny his motion to stay his execution. Art. 11.071 § 5(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, all future references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Per curiam.

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More