Ex parte Fratta

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

ON AMENDED APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND AMENDED MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 1195044 IN THE 230TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY

ORDER

PER CURIAM

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 a motion to stay Applicant's execution.

In June 2009, a jury convicted Applicant of the offense of capital murder for the death of his estranged wife. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a). The jury answered the special issues submitted under 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, denied habeas relief on his initial Article 11.071 writ application, and dismissed his first and second subsequent Article 11.071 applications as abuses of the writ. Fratta v. State, No. AP-76,188 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2011) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Fratta, No. WR-31,536-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2014) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Fratta, No. WR-31,536-05 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2021) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Fratta, No. WR-31,536-06 (Tex. Crim. App. May 25, 2022) (not designated for publication).

Applicant filed in the convicting court on December 27, 2022, this, his third subsequent (amended) Article 11.071 application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he raises nine claims. In the first claim, Applicant asserts that his jury charge was constitutionally inadequate for failing to include an accomplice-witness instruction for Mary Gipp. In his second and third claims, Applicant asserts that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to counter false gun testimony introduced by the State, and that the State withheld favorable, material evidence. In his fourth claim, Applicant complains that a juror's exposure to a report about Applicant's prior conviction for the same crime and to the fact that confessions had been excluded violated his rights to an impartial jury and fair trial. In his fifth and sixth claims, Applicant asserts that the law of parties was unconstitutionally applied in his case and defects in his guilt phase jury charge misled and confused jurors, incorrectly stated the law, and expanded the bases for conviction. Applicant complains in his seventh and eighth claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him and that he was denied the right to self-representation in his direct appeal. Finally, in his ninth claim, Applicant asserts that the State used false evidence to support a finding of future dangerousness.

We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to show that he satisfies the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the amended application as an abuse of the writ without reviewing the merits of the claim raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). We also decline Applicant's invitation to reconsider his -05 writ. We deny Applicant's amended motion to stay his execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.