Arthur William Montgomery v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Arthur William Montgomery v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 03-07-00448-CR

Case Date: 11/30/2007

Plaintiff: Benjamin Pierson

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County

Preview:EX PARTE DANIEL ANGEL PLATA (Original)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Close This Window
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
AP-75,820 EX PARTE DANIEL ANGEL PLATA ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 693143-B FROM THE 351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY Per curiam.
O P I N I O N
This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts that he is mentally retarded and may not be executed. We remanded this claim to the trial court for resolution.
Applicant was convicted of capital murder on October 14, 1996, and the jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, in favor of the State. In accordance with the jury's answers, the trial court sentenced Applicant to death. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion, Plata v. State, No. 72,639 (Tex. Crim. App. July 8, 1998), and Applicant's initial Article 11.071 application for writ of habeas corpus was denied in an unpublished order, Ex parte Plata, No. WR-46,749-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2000).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs/16381.html[8/20/2013 6:37:28 PM]
Applicant filed a subsequent habeas writ application on July 18, 2003, asserting that he is mentally retarded and cannot be executed after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holding that the death penalty is excessive punishment for a mentally retarded criminal). We determined that this claim met the requirements for consideration under Article 11.071, Section 5, and remanded the matter to the trial court for resolution. Ex parte Plata, No.46,749-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sep. 29, 2004).
The trial court held a hearing at which there was testimony that Applicant is mentally retarded and testimony that he is not mentally retarded. The trial court finds that Applicant is mentally retarded and recommends that we grant relief. It has returned the case to this Court with its findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have reviewed the record of the proceedings on remand. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record, and we adopt them as our own. We conclude that Applicant is mentally retarded and may not be executed. The relief Applicant seeks is granted.
Applicant's sentence is reformed from death to life imprisonment.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2008.
Do Not Publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs/16381.html[8/20/2013 6:37:28 PM]

Download 16381.pdf