OPINION

Price, J., delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court.

We have before us a subsequent post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 The applicant challenges the constitutionality of his death sentence, specifically arguing that the jury's answer to the special issue submitted to it at the punishment phase of his capital-murder trial with respect to whether he is mentally retarded was corrupted by false testimony of a State's expert, Dr. George Denkowski.2 We will dismiss this subsequent application, but without prejudice to the applicant to submit another subsequent writ application later (so long as that later subsequent writ application satisfies the requisites of Article 11.071, Section 5, for a subsequent capital writ application).

This Court affirmed the applicant's original conviction for capital murder and death sentence on direct appeal on September 26, 2007.3 We denied relief on his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus on January 9, 2013.4 On April 22, 2013, the same attorney appointed to represent the applicant in his original habeas corpus proceedings, Jerome Godinich, Jr.,5 filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus on the applicant's behalf — the pleading that is before us in the instant case. However, between this Court's denial of the applicant's initial writ application on January 9, 2013, and Godinich's filing of a subsequent state writ application on the applicant's behalf on April 22, 2013, a different attorney, A. Richard Ellis, was appointed to represent the applicant in federal habeas corpus proceedings to be brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.6 Shortly after he was appointed to represent the applicant in federal court proceedings, Ellis filed a notice of appearance in this case and a motion to strike the subsequent post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus that Godinich had filed, claiming that Godinich had filed it without the applicant's permission and against the applicant's will.7 Without further ado, the convicting court forwarded the subsequent state post-conviction writ application to this Court, as required by statute.8 On June 26, 2013, this Court remanded the subsequent writ application to the convicting court for additional fact development and recommended findings with respect to how we should proceed with the subsequent writ application that Godinich filed on the applicant's behalf.9 With the benefit of that additional fact development and recommendations from the convicting court, the case is back before us now and we have filed and set the cause in order to decide whether to allow Godinich to proceed with this subsequent writ application on the applicant's behalf.

In response to our remand, the convicting court entered recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Noting that the applicant "advanced a claim of mental retardation during his trial in this court[,]" the convicting court has recommended that we find "that it is Attorney Godinich's duty to continue representing [the applicant] until and unless relieved of his duties by this Court or another court possessing jurisdiction." Citing Indiana v. Edwards,10 the convicting court recommended that we hold that it had "the authority to appoint counsel and to insist upon representation by appointed counsel for those who may suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct proceedings by themselves."11 On these premises, the convicting court recommended that we conclude that the applicant's "subsequent state writ was filed appropriately by duly appointed counsel... Godinich ... and should, therefore proceed to litigation." For a number of reasons, we reject these recommended findings and conclusions.

First and foremost, we disagree that Godinich's duty to represent the applicant extended beyond the point at which, following this Court's denial of state habeas relief, he satisfied his duty to file a motion in federal court "for the appointment of counsel in federal habeas review" under federal appointment provisions.12 Article 11.071 has never contemplated that initial state habeas counsel has a duty to continue representing his death-row client beyond this point. And indeed, since 2011, Sections 6(b-1) and 6(b-2) of Article 11.071 clearly evince the contrary proposition.13 These provisions require the convicting court, upon receiving notice from this Court that a subsequent post-conviction habeas application will be allowed to proceed under Section 5 of Article 11.071, to formally appoint and compensate counsel for the indigent death-row inmate.14 They would be utterly redundant under a statutory scheme that already imposed a continuing duty on court-appointed initial state habeas counsel to represent his death-row client even after the initial writ application was finally disposed of.15 Godinich filed the applicant's subsequent writ application on April 22, 2013, well after the effective date of Article 11.071, Sections 6(b-1) and 6(b-2).16 At that point in time, he had not been appointed by the court to represent the applicant in a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus. And while it may certainly have been acceptable for Godinich to file such a subsequent writ application on a pro bono basis (as with any subsequent writ application in a death penalty case filed by an attorney under the statutory scheme — unless and until this Court should grant the convicting court permission to proceed under Article 11.071, Section 5, thus triggering the appointment-and-compensation mechanisms of Sections 6(b-1) and 6(b-2)), he may not do so against the express will, and without the permission, of the applicant himself.

It is certainly true that a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus need not be "presented" by the applicant himself.17 But the "other person" who "may sign[] and present[]" the habeas petition on the applicant's behalf must at least have the applicant's informed consent to do so.18 Otherwise, it cannot be said that the "other person" is genuinely presenting the habeas petition "for him."19 The word "for" can mean "in place of" or "in behalf of," but it may also simply mean, "as regards."20 Given the potential abuse-of-the-writ consequences of having some "other person" present an applicant's post-conviction writ application "for him," we are not inclined to interpret "for him" in Article 11.12 merely to mean "as regards" him.21 And before it can be said that the "other person" presents an application "in place of" or "in behalf of" the applicant, that "other person" should have the applicant's approval.

In his affidavit on remand, Godinich has opined that the applicant "is not of sufficiently sound mind to understand" Ellis's ministrations — the suggestion being that the applicant lacks the capacity to make a rational decision to forego Godinich's services on his behalf in this subsequent writ application. Perhaps this consideration underlies the convicting court's recommendation that subsequent writ counsel should continue to represent the applicant, since the applicant "may" be one of those who "suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct proceedings by themselves." There is no suggestion in the record before us that the applicant is mentally ill, however, or that his mental retardation, if any, is so debilitating as to render him incapable of rationally choosing, upon Ellis's advice, to reject Godinich's (however well-intentioned) attempts on his behalf. Godinich has not requested, and the convicting court has failed to conduct, any proceeding designed to expose any incompetency on the applicant's part. Nor did the convicting court enter an order actually appointing Godinich to prepare and file a subsequent writ application on the applicant's behalf.22 On the current state of the record, we find the holding of Indiana v. Edwards, upon which the convicting court based its recommendation, to be entirely inapposite.23

The applicant currently has the benefit of court-appointed counsel, albeit only for the federal habeas corpus proceedings. As long as Ellis remains the applicant's appointed federal habeas attorney, he has an obligation to continue to represent the applicant all the way through the state executive clemency process.24 After conducting his federal investigation, Ellis would presumably be in a better position to gauge all of the potential claims for inclusion in a first subsequent writ application under Section 5 of Article 11.071, and thereby at least minimize the risk of additional procedural default by the failure to include reasonably available claims in the applicant's first subsequent (-02) writ application that could bar him from raising them successfully in any subsequent subsequent (-03 or -04) writ application.25 This is the risk that Godinich runs in filing the present writ application, based as it is upon but a single issue that he would have the applicant pursue without the benefit of the product of Ellis's federal habeas investigation. Godinich's present subsequent writ application may well interfere with Ellis's later, better-informed efforts on the applicant's behalf. Given these considerations, it is little wonder that the applicant does not wish to have Godinich file a subsequent writ application at the present time. We must respect that wish.

For these reasons, we dismiss the subsequent writ application that Godinich has filed, but without prejudice to the applicant to later file a subsequent writ application that will be evaluated for abuse-of-the-writ purposes, under Section 5 of Article 11.071, as if it were the applicant's first subsequent writ application.