Lave, Joseph Roland

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS NOS. WR-44,564-03 and WR-44,564-04 EX PARTE JOSEPH ROLAND LAVE

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F93-03527-S IN THE 282ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY Per curiam. K ELLER, P.J., and K EASLER, J., not participating.

ORDER

These are subsequent post conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.1

Applicant presents one allegation in his second subsequent application. We determined that the allegation satisfied the requirements of Article 11.071, Section 5, and remanded that application to the trial court for consideration on the merits.

Lave - 2 Applicant presents six allegations in his third subsequent application. We remanded that application to the trial court for a determination of whether the first five allegations satisfied the requirements of Article 11.071, Section 5, and, if they did satisfy the requirements of Section 5, for consideration on the merits. We concluded that the sixth allegation satisfied the requirements of Article 11.071, Section 5, and remanded it for consideration on the merits.

On remand, the trial court determined that the factual basis for the first five allegations in the third subsequent application was unavailable on the date that applicant filed his second subsequent application. See Art. 11.07, § 5(a)(1). Therefore, the trial court considered all of the allegations on the merits.

The trial court conducted a live hearing, in which the applicant and the State presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced exhibits in support of their respective positions. After consideration, the trial judge entered his findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that relief be denied on the allegations raised in both applications.

We have reviewed the record and the trial judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we agree with the trial court’s recommendation. Based upon the trial court’s findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied in both applications.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

Do Not Publish