IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-27,328-03 and WR-27,328-04

EX PARTE ROLANDO RUIZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN CAUSE NO. 92-CR-6718-B IN THE 227TH DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam. K ELLER, P.J., and K EASLER, J., dissent. H ERVEY and Y EARY,
JJ., not participating.

ORDER
We have before us a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 § 5, a
suggestion that the Court reconsider a previously filed application, and a motion to stay
the execution.
In January 1995, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The
jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

 Ruiz - 2
Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court
affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Ruiz v. State, No. AP72,072 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 25, 1998)(not designated for publication). On September
15, 1997, applicant filed in the convicting court his initial post-conviction application for
a writ of habeas corpus. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Ruiz, No. WR27,328-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 2, 2003)(not designated for publication).
On July 2, 2007, applicant filed in the convicting court his first subsequent
application. In that application, applicant claimed that his trial counsel performed
deficiently by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the punishment
phase of trial, and his initial habeas counsel performed deficiently by not raising this issue
in applicant’s initial writ application. This Court found that the application did not meet
the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5 and dismissed it. Ex parte Ruiz, No. WR-27,32803 (Tex. Crim. App. July 6, 2007)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this,
his second subsequent writ application, in the convicting court on August 12, 2016.
In his second subsequent application, applicant asserts that: (1) his trial counsel
performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the
punishment phase of trial, and his initial habeas counsel performed deficiently by not
raising this issue in applicant’s initial writ application; and (2) executing him over two
decades after his conviction violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. After reviewing applicant’s writ application, we have determined that his

 Ruiz - 3
execution should be stayed pending further order by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

Do Not Publish