eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
 2009-03

Lann, Sie Joe ( 2009 )


Menu:

















  • IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

    OF TEXAS



    NO. WR-43,428-07

    EX PARTE SIE JOE LANN, Applicant


    ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

    CAUSE NO. 97-07-00030-CRL IN THE 218TH DISTRICT COURT

    FROM LASALLE COUNTY

    Per curiam.

    O P I N I O N
      



    Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

    In his present application, Applicant raises two grounds for challenging his conviction. This application, however, presents a more serious question. Applicant alleges judicial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of his allegations, Applicant submitted two documents purporting to be letters from the Honorable Judge Olin B. Strauss, and the Honorable Chief Justice Alma L. Lopez. This Court had concerns that such documents were not legitimate.

    This Court remanded the application to the trial court to obtain affidavits from the Honorable Judge Strauss and the Honorable Chief Justice Lopez. Both the Honorable Judge Strauss and the Honorable Chief Justice Lopez denied writing the letters. The trial court has found that both letters were fraudulent.

    The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). We find that Applicant has abused the Great Writ by submitting false evidence. We dismiss this application and cite him for abuse of the writ. By that abuse, Applicant has waived and abandoned any contention that he might have in regard to the instant conviction, at least insofar as existing claims that he could have or should have brought in the application. Ex parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Middaugh v. State, 683 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte Emmons, 660 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

    Therefore, we instruct the Honorable Louise Pearson, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, not to accept or file the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application attacking this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have not been raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

    Additionally, based on Applicant's submission of false evidence, we find that Applicant has filed a frivolous lawsuit and he is subject to the time forfeiture provisions of Government Code § 498.0045.

    Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.



    Filed: March 25, 2009

    Do Not Publish