Melissa Lucio get a stay from being executed yesterday read this b/s
Page 1 of 1
20220427
Melissa Lucio get a stay from being executed yesterday read this b/s
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-72,702-05
EX PARTE MELISSA ELIZABETH LUCIO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
FROM CAUSE NO. 07-CR-00885 IN THE 138 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTTH
CAMERON COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
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 a
motion to stay Applicant’s execution.1
In July 2008, a jury convicted Applicant of the February 2007 capital murder of
her two-year-old daughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a). Based on the jury’s
All references to “Articles” in this order refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure1
unless otherwise specified.
Lucio – 2
answers to the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, the trial court
sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence
on direct appeal. Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). We also
denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction writ of habeas corpus application. Ex
parte Lucio, No. WR-72,702-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 9, 2013) (not designated for
publication).
The trial court ultimately scheduled Applicant’s execution for April 27, 2022. On
April 18, 2022, she filed the instant habeas application. She raises nine claims in her
application. Specifically, Applicant asserts that: (1) but for the State’s use of false
testimony, no juror would have convicted her; (2) previously unavailable scientific
evidence would preclude her conviction; (3) she is actually innocent; (4) her trial counsel
provided constitutionally ineffective assistance; (5) the State suppressed favorable,
material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (6) the State violated her Sixth
Amendment right to be free from uncounseled pretrial interrogation; (7) her conviction
and death sentence are tainted by juror misconduct; (
gender bias tainted her
prosecution and contributed to her wrongful conviction; and (9) she is innocent of the
death penalty.
After reviewing the record, we have determined that Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 meet the
requirements of Article 11.071 § 5(a). We therefore remand those claims to the trial court
for a merits’ review. The remaining claims do not meet the requirements of Article
Lucio – 3
11.071 § 5(a) and should not be reviewed. Applicant’s execution is stayed pending
resolution of the remanded claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 25 DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-72,702-05
EX PARTE MELISSA ELIZABETH LUCIO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
FROM CAUSE NO. 07-CR-00885 IN THE 138 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTTH
CAMERON COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
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 a
motion to stay Applicant’s execution.1
In July 2008, a jury convicted Applicant of the February 2007 capital murder of
her two-year-old daughter. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a). Based on the jury’s
All references to “Articles” in this order refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure1
unless otherwise specified.
Lucio – 2
answers to the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, the trial court
sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence
on direct appeal. Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). We also
denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction writ of habeas corpus application. Ex
parte Lucio, No. WR-72,702-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 9, 2013) (not designated for
publication).
The trial court ultimately scheduled Applicant’s execution for April 27, 2022. On
April 18, 2022, she filed the instant habeas application. She raises nine claims in her
application. Specifically, Applicant asserts that: (1) but for the State’s use of false
testimony, no juror would have convicted her; (2) previously unavailable scientific
evidence would preclude her conviction; (3) she is actually innocent; (4) her trial counsel
provided constitutionally ineffective assistance; (5) the State suppressed favorable,
material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (6) the State violated her Sixth
Amendment right to be free from uncounseled pretrial interrogation; (7) her conviction
and death sentence are tainted by juror misconduct; (
gender bias tainted herprosecution and contributed to her wrongful conviction; and (9) she is innocent of the
death penalty.
After reviewing the record, we have determined that Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 meet the
requirements of Article 11.071 § 5(a). We therefore remand those claims to the trial court
for a merits’ review. The remaining claims do not meet the requirements of Article
Lucio – 3
11.071 § 5(a) and should not be reviewed. Applicant’s execution is stayed pending
resolution of the remanded claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 25 DAY OF APRIL, 2022.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 1078
Join date : 2021-11-21
Location : Rochester N.y -
Share this post on:
Similar topics» BOYCOTTING BIDEN’S STATE OF THE UNION: Rubio, Cotton, More Skipping Due to ‘COVID Theater Yesterday
» South Caroline death row inmate receives a stay of execution
» Read Between the Lines: Russian Foreign Minister
» Major Crime Wave In Rochester N.y Gotta Read This To Believe it.
» READ IT: Cheat Sheet Joe Strikes Again, Needs Help With Sitting, Speaking
» South Caroline death row inmate receives a stay of execution
» Read Between the Lines: Russian Foreign Minister
» Major Crime Wave In Rochester N.y Gotta Read This To Believe it.
» READ IT: Cheat Sheet Joe Strikes Again, Needs Help With Sitting, Speaking
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum