Mijores, Jose Manuel Flores ( 2006 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. 63,206-01

---

EX PARTE JOSE MANUEL FLORES MIJORES, Applicant

---

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 96-06-7423 FROM THE

155^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WALLER COUNTY

---

Per Curiam.

O R D E R  

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the offenses of aggravated robbery and aggravated sexual assault, and punishment was assessed at two concurrent sixty year terms of confinement. Applicant's convictions were reversed on appeal, Mijores v. State, Nos. 01-94-01153-CR & 01-94-01164-CR (Tex. App. --Houston [1st], delivered August 29, 1996), and remanded to the trial court. Applicant was retried for aggravated robbery and was convicted; punishment was assessed at life imprisonment. Applicant's conviction was affirmed on appeal, Mijores v. State, 11 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.--Houston [14^th] 1999).  

Applicant contends that no evidence exists to support his conviction for aggravated robbery, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial and sustain objections, and the court of appeal erred in affirming his conviction. In his final ground for review, Applicant contends that he is currently improperly serving a sixty year sentence for aggravated sexual assault. Specifically, Applicant asserts that after the reversal and remand in appeal No. 01-94-01164-CR, he was never retried for aggravated sexual assault, but that according to TDCJ-CID records, he is serving a sentence for the conviction.  

This Court has examined Applicant's final ground for review and determined that this ground is improperly presented in this application because multiple convictions or sentences may not be challenged in a single application. See Tex. R. App. P. 73.1 & 73.2. Therefore, that claim is dismissed. Applicant's remaining claims challenging his conviction in cause number 96-06-7423 are without merit; thus, they are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29^th DAY OF March, 2006.

EN BANC

DO NOT PUBLISH