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 an accompanying motion to stay Applicant’s execution.[1] In February 2003, a jury found Applicant guilty of capital murder for the death of his two-year-old daughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a)(8). Based on the jury’s answers to the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, the trial court sentenced Applicant to death. See Art. 37.071 § 2(g). On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and death sentence. See Roberson v. State, No. AP- 74,671 (Tex. Crim. App. June 20, 2007) (not designated for publication). This Court denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Roberson, Nos. WR-63,081-01 and WR-63,081-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 16, 2009) (not designated for publication). On the same day, we dismissed as a subsequent application a document titled “Notice of Desire to Raise Additional Habeas Corpus Claims.” See id. In 2016, Applicant filed in the trial court a second subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. After remanding the claims to the trial court for a merits’ review, the trial court held a hearing and recommended that this Court deny relief. This Court thereafter denied relief on all of the claims raised. See Ex parte Roberson, No. WR- 63,081-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2023) (not designated for publication), cert. denied sub nom. Roberson v. Tex., 144 S. Ct. 129 (2023). This Court dismissed Applicant’s third subsequent application in September 2024. See Ex parte Roberson, No. WR-63,081-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2024) (not designated for publication). Applicant’s instant post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the trial court on October 15, 2024. In this application, Applicant argues that Article 11.073 and Ex parte Roark, S.W.3d , No. WR-56,380-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2024), provide him an avenue for review and relief. We have thoroughly reviewed the application and the entire record and find that Applicant has failed to show that he satisfies 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 raised. Art. 11.071 § 5(c). We deny Applicant’s motion to stay his execution. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. Do Not Publish
