X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The applicant presents 37 allegations, including a claim of mental retardation, in his original application for habeas corpus relief in this death-penalty capital-murder case. The trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that relief be denied. HOLDING:Denied. Applicant contends that he is mentally retarded and thus, under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), he is exempt from execution. Although there was some evidence in the trial and writ record suggesting the possibility of mild mental retardation, there was also ample evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s finding that applicant is not mentally retarded. The court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this factual conclusion. The court also dismisses applicant’s recently filed motion seeking consideration of additional evidence of mental retardation. In the ordinary case, if this court were to consider evidentiary materials that were never submitted to, or considered by, the habeas court, the statutory purpose in having the convicting court gather the pertinent evidence and make the appropriate written findings of fact would be entirely frustrated. The legislative framework of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071 contemplates that the habeas judge is “Johnny on the spot.” He is the collector of the evidence, the organizer of the materials, the decisionmaker as to what live testimony may be necessary, the factfinder who resolves disputed factual issues, and the judge who applies the law to the facts, enters specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, and may make a specific recommendation to grant or deny relief. This court then has the statutory duty to review the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions to ensure that they are supported by the record and are in accordance with the law. This court is not the convicting trial court, and the court is not the original factfinder. It is generally fruitless, if not counterproductive, to file original evidentiary materials relating to a habeas claim with this court rather than the trial court. Although the court might have the implicit authority to consider evidentiary materials filed directly with this court, the court states, normally the jurisprudential considerations of efficiency, effectiveness and comity to the habeas court counsel against such consideration. Because applicant has failed to offer proof of any compelling and extraordinary circumstances, the court declines to consider the evidentiary materials that he has filed directly with this court. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.