IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-63,282-04

EX PARTE RAMIRO HERNANDEZ aka RAMIRO HERNANDEZ LLANAS

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION

IN CAUSE NO. A97364-4 IN THE 216^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

KERR COUNTY

           Per Curiam. Hervey, J., not participating.

O R D E R

           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 February 2000, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Hernandez v. State, No. AP-73,776 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2002)(not designated for publication).

           Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on May 2, 2002. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Hernandez, No. WR-63,282-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 10, 2008)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his first subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on September 8, 2009, and this Court dismissed it. Ex parte Hernandez, No. WR-63,282-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2009)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his second subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on January 22, 2010, and this Court dismissed that application. Ex parte Hernandez, No. WR-63,282-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2010)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this his third subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on March 31, 2014.

           In three claims in this subsequent writ application, applicant asserts that his death sentence cannot stand because the State unknowingly presented false evidence at trial which violated his right to due process. We have reviewed applicant’s claims and find that they fail to meet the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims, and we deny applicant’s motion to stay his execution.

           IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

Do Not Publish