Ex Parte Rodriguez

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Rodriguez

164 S.W.3d 400, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 913, 2005 WL 1398132

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 15, 2005

DocketWR-44330-02

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 164 S.W.3d 400 (Ex Parte Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Rodriguez, 164 S.W.3d 400, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 913, 2005 WL 1398132 (Tex. 2005).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code op CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Article 11.071, § 5. This cause was remanded to the convicting court for consideration of applicant’s claim that he is mentally retarded and his execution would violate the United States Constitution.

The convicting court conducted a hearing, in which the applicant and the State presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced exhibits in support of their respective positions. After consideration, the judge of the convicting court entered his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge recommended that relief be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to applicant’s allegations. We adopt the trial judge’s findings and conclusions. Applicant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has adaptive behavioral deficits sufficient to be considered mentally retarded or to place him in that category of persons for whom a national consensus against execution exists. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Based upon the trial court’s findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied.

HERVEY, J., not participating. HOLCOMB, J., dissents. COCHRAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the denial of relief in which PRICE, J., joined.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code op CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Article 11.071, § 5. This cause was remanded to the convicting court for consideration of applicant’s claim that he is mentally retarded and his execution would violate the United States Constitution.

The convicting court conducted a hearing, in which the applicant and the State presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced exhibits in support of their respective positions. After consideration, the judge of the convicting court entered his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge recommended that relief be denied.

This Court has reviewed the record with respect to applicant’s allegations. We adopt the trial judge’s findings and conclusions. Applicant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has adaptive behavioral deficits sufficient to be considered mentally retarded or to place him in that category of persons for whom a national consensus against execution exists. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Based upon the trial court’s findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied.

HERVEY, J., not participating. HOLCOMB, J., dissents. COCHRAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the denial of relief in which PRICE, J., joined.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.W.3d 400, 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 913, 2005 WL 1398132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-rodriguez-texcrimapp-2005.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack