/-7¢/6~¢/57‘ 3,_ ,10/5 §HWE@EWE m ' ,q[, @/ /}CQQ;, C/C,,.k ©@UW@F©@MNAM@P§AL@ /Ul 01 BOX /2503', 07]0/'/`0~/ 49 /0)7 l Ab@§&@@§§a,©g@?k Az/:W/¢ ,"/E»M; 7Y7// U@/m 15 L/'v/jl/G~J ¢/35230 § _?Oéa /-'/77 35/6’ 57/7@: l? wymme "77705 De/)r /V)n Ac 057/?', 7/7 /"€FE/’€/?c£’ 7;. aar /cj’/_/?/‘ 70_/?76’ jL:é/ZZ, Z@/f, 001 qu’Z?a/' your /"@@m/: gaf /7@7'3/50¢¢/2'//90@ /4 -wr/?;/"AA¢§@AS for/nu }7'/6.>¢/ //7 7;£ @¢¢/7?/~_[/‘/;);//}0/ /9/0/034¢1 j:¢JrOF' 77;6’ /7//9/'/’/.5 CbunV)_/' olsmrc/Gfk //)Cju/r>/'/?§ 1415007_/7/)'/ wff“/_/ /}7 Q'AMJ@ #'/035/59 /9}_¢_>_¢6, 107/z .QA/)/'c’/ 5607’/5?@# c/@cc»/f/`/;ue ,0@7/'26’ (€nc/@.S@¢/), _/'/)7 jena/you % O/’c/é>r’ 0/@"77}29 / 741 71" 0/‘5771'¢7’_[0 urTT"or¢/@r'/;gj 73; U/§Nl?`E/€r/V /? 7/':9/75/§/‘ m/ wri`?/#/p$§/é ?'E /`; )/m//' 0%`/“72@”[£/7¢/05@¢//, TVFM!T:Z` u//'// /16°/9r };am your 0 /-”F/é@ 60 /77! 020/751 .30 / /Z¢cm» ;/_ Z / 063/7/7/\§ '[, /_.;1%?55 111 accordance With Sect ion 552.028 Governm'en ' *Req`uest for information § _ c. olith is imprisoned ` a correctional facility; or at indiv the it or confined in (2) An agent ofiil iduai, other than that individual’s orney is reques fin ` that is subject to disd 171/556 No'.'i"03'5'r69:13 EX PARTE ` § § 0F DENNIS L. LIVINGS, Applicant § HARRIS CGUNTY, TEXAS STATE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ()RDER The Court has considered the application for writ of habeas corpus, the State’s answer and official court records iri the above-captioned cause. The Court finds that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's confinement which require an evidentiary hearing and recommends that the relief requested be denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicant challenged his conviction in his previous application for writ of . habeas corpus in cause number lO35169-A. 761014'~ he makes claims that directly challenge his conviction, after the final disposition of the applicant’s previous application for writ of habeas corpus. 3. All subsequent writ applications regarding the same conviction, including subsequent applications that do not challenge the conviction, must meet the requirements of Article ll-.07 §4(a) by including sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims could not have been presented previously because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable; or that, by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution, no rational juror could have found Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex parte Whitesz'de, 12 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (emphasis added). is/aa 2. *"`""`The`appiieant filed the ingram appii§aiibn`foi habeas'c`orp£is§""l'<')`j$i6941§, 'i*ri""v"viii"c'iiw"”` 4. The applicant has failed to include sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims could not have been presented previously because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable; or that, by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of-the United States Constitution, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 4 (a). 5. ` In all things, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his conviction was improperly obtained or that he is being improperly confined. Accordingly, it is recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that relief be denied. l.`~) THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript of all papers in cause number 1035169- B and transmit same to the Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by TEX. CoDE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3. The transcript shall include certified copies of the following documents: A. the application for writ of habeas corpus, together with all attachments; B. the State’s Original Answer, together with all attachments; C. the Court's order; D. the indictment (or information), judgment and sentence, and the docket sheets in cause number 1035169; ` E. State’s Proposed_ Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order; and F. The applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact (if any). THE CLERK is further ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the applicant, ~»eDennis--L:-l;ivings;»#~1~3‘5-2308"=*Stiles'Unit, 3060~FM"35-1'4~,» rBeaumont», TX~~77-705, and-to~counsel~~~--~~--~-~- - for State, Andrew J. Smith, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002. By the following signature, the Court adopts the State’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in cause no. 1035169-B. // Signed on this/
Livings, Dennis Len
Combined Opinion