stating that, "when an applicant's statutory entitlement to minimally competent *926assistance of habeas counsel has been denied, and where such denial has led to the forfeiture of a substantial claim for relief, this Court should declare the initial filing improper and adjudicate the claim on the merits"
How later courts described this case
- stating that, "when an applicant's statutory entitlement to minimally competent *926assistance of habeas counsel has been denied, and where such denial has led to the forfeiture of a substantial claim for relief, this Court should declare the initial filing improper and adjudicate the claim on the merits"
- suggesting that, "when an applicant can demonstrate that initial habeas counsel's performance fell below the minimum standards for representation set forth in Article 11.071, and when an applicant can demonstrate that, *832as a result of counsel's incompetence, a substantial claim for relief was forfeited, this Court may properly exercise its habeas jurisdiction to consider the merits of the underlying claim"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.
In May 1997, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071, TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC., and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Buck v. State, No. AP-72,810 (Tex.Crim.App. April 28, 1999). This Court denied relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Buck, No. WR-57,004-01 (Tex.Crim.App. October 15, 2003). This Court dismissed Applicant’s second post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Buck, No. WR-57,004-02 (Tex.Crim.App. October 15, 2003). Applicant’s instant post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on March 28, 2013.
Applicant presents three allegations in the instant application. We have reviewed the application and find that Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the application as an abuse of the writ without considering the merits of the claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALCALA, J., filed a dissenting statement in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ„ joined.