Opinion
No. WR-45,179-02
Delivered: July 21, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Application for Post-Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Motion for Stay of Execution from Cause No. 114-81252-97-B, in the 114th Judicial District Court Smith County.
PER CURIAM. KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, J., dissent; PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ., not participating.
ORDER
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, and a motion for stay of execution. In April 1998, a jury found applicant guilty 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 applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Bridgers v. State, No. 73,112 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 25, 2000) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on December 29, 1999. This Court denied applicant relief. Ex parte Bridgers, No. WR-45,179-01 (Tex Crim. App. May 31, 2000) (not designated for publication). Applicant's subsequent application was received in this Court on July 18, 2006. Applicant presents two allegations in his application. In his first claim, applicant asserts that his execution would violate the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded. In his second claim, applicant asserts that his execution would violate his due process rights unless he is afforded a full and fair hearing on his claim of mental retardation with access to the tools necessary to establish his claim. We have reviewed the application and find that the allegations satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, we grant applicant's motion to stay his execution and remand the application to the trial court for a live hearing on applicant's claims. IT IS SO ORDERED.