Young, Clinton Lee ( 2012 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

WR-65,137-03

---

EX PARTE CLINTON LEE YOUNG

---

ON SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-27181 IN THE 385^TH DISTRICT COURT

MIDLAND COUNTY

---

Per Curiam. O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.071, Section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder in March 2003. 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. Young v. State, No. 74,643 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1056 (2006). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed his first subsequent application. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-01 and No. WR-65,137-02 (Tex. Crim App. Dec. 20, 2006)(not designated for publication).

Applicant's second subsequent writ was received by this Court on April 3, 2009. Applicant presented four allegations. Two of the allegations satisfied the requirements for consideration of a subsequent application under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5:

Claim I: The prosecution's failure to produce exculpatory evidence, and the presentation of false testimony, violated applicant's constitutional rights.

Claim II: The prosecution's suppression of evidence concerning State witness A.P. Merillat violated applicant's constitutional rights.

We remanded Applicant's case to the trial court for consideration of those issues. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-03 (Tex. Crim App. June 3, 2009)(not designated for publication).   

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, Applicant, with the approval of counsel in open court, abandoned Claim II. The trial court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that this application be denied.

We have reviewed the record of the hearing and the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Based upon our own review, we deny relief on Applicant's Claim I pertaining to the prosecution's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, and dismiss Claim II pertaining to witness Merillat.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JUNE, 2012.

Do Not Publish