Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' unexplained abuse-of-writ ruling constitutes an adequate and independent state-law ground for denying post-conviction relief when the ruling is intertwined with federal law

CAPITAL CASE The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ( CCA) dismissed Petitioner’s subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, cont aining several unexhausted claims, as an abuse of the writ under Article 11.071, se ction 5. In applying section 5, the CCA reviews both whether there is a prima faci e showing that the claim has merit, and whether the claim was factually or legally unavailable at the time of any prior filings by the applicant. Both prongs requ ire the CCA to assess the state of federal law as it applies to the claim raised. Abuse-of-the-writ analysis under Texas law is therefore frequently intertwined with questions of federal constitutional law. Here , however, and in many other cases, the CCA simply stated its conclusion that Pe titioner had abused the writ, without providing any reasoning to explain to what extent its decision was based on a review of the merits of the federal claim or the state of federal law. This Court is currently considering comparable issues in Glossip v. Oklahoma , No. 22-7466. The questions presented here are: 1. Whether the CCA’s otherwise unexplained ruling that abuse of the writ under Article 11.071, section 5, precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment, where the CCA’s application of abuse of the writ is inte rwoven with the federal law that governs the petitioner’s claim? 2. Whether this case should be held pending this Court’s decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma ? iii STATEMENT OF