Martinez, Jose Noey
This text of Martinez, Jose Noey (Martinez, Jose Noey) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. WR-58,358-02
EX PARTE JOSE NOEY MARTINEZ
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. CR-0385-95-G(2) IN THE 370TH DISTRICT COURT HIDALGO COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
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 November 1996, Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murder. The
jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed
Applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Martinez v. State, No. AP-72,704 Martinez - 2
(Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 1999)(not designated for publication). This Court denied relief
on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Applicant presents two allegations in his -02 writ application. First, he claims that his
execution would violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against the execution of the
mentally retarded. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Second, he contends that his
execution would violate his due process rights unless he is provided “a full and fair hearing
on his claim of mental retardation and the tools necessary to establish his claim.” These
claims, which satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5, were remanded to the trial court
for consideration of those issues. The trial court held a hearing on remand. The trial court
then made findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it determined that Applicant “is
a person with intellectual disability (mental retardation)” and “is constitutionally ineligible
for a death sentence.”
This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegations made by Applicant.
We grant relief on the -02 writ application and reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect a
sentence of life imprisonment.
Delivered: June 15, 2016 Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Martinez, Jose Noey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-jose-noey-texcrimapp-2016.