reviewing record, which shows that notice of witness’s name was file marked five days prior to start of State’s direct evidence and eight days before witness was actually called, and determining that State did not engage in bad faith
How later courts described this case
- reviewing record, which shows that notice of witness’s name was file marked five days prior to start of State’s direct evidence and eight days before witness was actually called, and determining that State did not engage in bad faith
- procedural bar doctrine applies to unexhausted claims if state court would likely dismiss successive habeas petition under Article 11.071
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
This record has no opinion text. It is a disposition such as a denial of certiorari, kept so the case can be found by name and citation.