IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-77,157-01 and WR-77,157-02
EX PARTE DANIEL LEE LOPEZ, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND MOTIONS TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 09-CR-787-B
IN THE 117 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUECES COUNTY
Per curiam. A LCALA, J., filed a concurring statement in which J OHNSON, J.,
joins.
ORDER
This is 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 two motions to
stay applicant’s execution.
In March 2010, 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
Lopez - 2
Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s punishment at death.1
This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Lopez v.
State, No. AP-76,327 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2012)(not designated for publication).
Shortly after he was convicted and sentenced to death, applicant waived the appointment
of counsel to represent him in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.071, and he expressed his desire to waive habeas review altogether. No writ
application was filed in the convicting court on or before the statutory due date of January
27, 2012. Because no writ application was filed, and because applicant consistently and
repeatedly expressed his desire to waive habeas review, this Court accepted his habeas
waiver and noted in the order issued that the waiver constituted a waiver of all grounds
for relief that were available to him before the last date on which his application could
have been timely filed. Ex parte Lopez, No. WR-77,157-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 18,
2012)(not designated for publication).
On July 27, 2015, counsel for applicant filed in this Court a suggestion that we
reconsider on our own motion our acceptance of applicant’s waiver of habeas review. In
the suggestion to reconsider, counsel asserts that the Court should reconsider its order
accepting applicant’s waiver of state habeas review because the process by which he was
allowed to waive did not comport with the dictates of due process.
On July 28, 2015, counsel filed in the trial court a subsequent application for a writ
1
Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Lopez - 3
of habeas corpus. In the subsequent application, counsel asserts that applicant is actually
innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.
After reviewing applicant’s subsequent application, we find that he has failed to
satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed
as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claim, and his motion to stay
the execution is denied. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). Further, we decline to reconsider our
determination to accept applicant’s waiver of habeas review, and we deny the motion to
stay filed in conjunction with that pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.
Do Not Publish
Lopez, Daniel
Combined Opinion