Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent

Jan 4, 1989
88-2855
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Politz

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

We have rejected Bridge’s ‍‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍claims for a writ of habeas corpus. We were persuaded in the late hour that in fairness we ought to rest our ‍‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍decision there. We remain convinced that we were correct in our original decision, but with the fullness of time, we are now ‍‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍persuaded that our denial should rest on the absence of legal cause for Bridge’s failure to raise the “Franklin” issue at trial. See ‍‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍Franklin v. Lynaugh, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 221, 98 L.Ed.2d 180 (1987); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Selvage v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988). ‍‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‍To the extent they are contrary, our earlier writings are withdrawn.