Wooten, Larry Wayne

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Wooten, Larry Wayne

DecidedApril 12, 2006

DocketWR-47,160-02

StatusPublished

This text of Wooten, Larry Wayne (Wooten, Larry Wayne) 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

Wooten, Larry Wayne, (Tex. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-47,160-02 EX PARTE LARRY WAYNE WOOTEN ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 16820 FROM THE

6^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY

Per Curiam. Womack, J., not participating.

ORDER

This is a subsequent application for habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts he is mentally retarded and cannot be executed.

Applicant was convicted of capital murder in May 1998. 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. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. Wooten v. State, No. 73,134 (Tex. Crim. App. January 9, 2002). Applicant's initial WOOTEN -2-

post conviction writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on September 18, 2000, and relief was denied by written order dated April 3, 2002. Applicant filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus October 2, 2003, alleging inter alia that he was mentally retarded and could not be executed. We determined that the requirements of Article 11.071, section 5 for consideration of subsequent, previously unavailable claims had been met and the issue of mental retardation was remanded to the trial court for resolution. The record has now been returned for our consideration.

The convicting court did not hear testimony but received affidavits from witnesses for both applicant and the State. The convicting court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have reviewed the record considered by the convicting court and find that the record supports the findings of that court. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the convicting court. Accordingly, relief in this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2006.

Do Not Publish

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

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

WR-47,160-02 EX PARTE LARRY WAYNE WOOTEN ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 16820 FROM THE

6^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY

Per Curiam. Womack, J., not participating.

ORDER

This is a subsequent application for habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts he is mentally retarded and cannot be executed.

Applicant was convicted of capital murder in May 1998. 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. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. Wooten v. State, No. 73,134 (Tex. Crim. App. January 9, 2002). Applicant's initial WOOTEN -2-

post conviction writ of habeas corpus was received in this Court on September 18, 2000, and relief was denied by written order dated April 3, 2002. Applicant filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus October 2, 2003, alleging inter alia that he was mentally retarded and could not be executed. We determined that the requirements of Article 11.071, section 5 for consideration of subsequent, previously unavailable claims had been met and the issue of mental retardation was remanded to the trial court for resolution. The record has now been returned for our consideration.

The convicting court did not hear testimony but received affidavits from witnesses for both applicant and the State. The convicting court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have reviewed the record considered by the convicting court and find that the record supports the findings of that court. We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the convicting court. Accordingly, relief in this subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2006.

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wooten, Larry Wayne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooten-larry-wayne-texcrimapp-2006.