Summary
In Ex parte James Lee Henderson, No. WR-37,658-03, 2018 WL 4762755 (Tex. Crim. App. October 3, 2018), we exercised our authority to reconsider this capital writ on our own initiative in light of Moore.
Summary of this case from Thomas v. StateOpinion
WR-37,658-03
10-03-2018
EX PARTE JAMES LEE HENDERSON
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 181CR1293 IN THE 102ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF RED RIVER COUNTY Per curiam. 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.
In June 1994, Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Henderson v. State, No. AP-71,928 (Tex. Crim. App. December 18, 1996)(not designated for publication). This Court denied relief on Applicant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Henderson, No. WR-37,658-01 (Tex. Crim. App. July 8, 1998)(not designated for publication). This Court dismissed his first subsequent habeas application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Henderson, No. WR-37,658-02 (Tex. Crim. App. October 27, 1999)(not designated for publication). Applicant later filed his second subsequent habeas application, in which he alleged that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for the death penalty under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321 (2002). We denied that application in 2006. Ex parte Henderson, No. WR-37,658-03 (Tex. Crim. App. January 25, 2006)(not designated for publication). In February 2014, we declined Applicant's suggestion to reconsider our disposition of that application.
Applicant also filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court denied. Henderson v. Director, No. 1:06-CV-507 (E.D. Tex. September 6, 2013). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief. Henderson v. Stephens, 791 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2015). Applicant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which was pending when the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039 (2017). In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court rejected the use of the Briseno factors to analyze adaptive deficits because they "creat[e] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed." Id. at 1051. The Supreme Court held that this Court improperly "fastened its intellectual-disability determination to 'the AAMR's 1992 definition of intellectual disability that [it] adopted in Briseno for Atkins claims presented in Texas death-penalty cases." Id. at 1053.
Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
See American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (9th ed. 1992). --------
The Supreme Court thereafter granted Applicant's petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration of the Atkins claim. Henderson v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 1450 (2017). The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for reconsideration of the Atkins claim. Henderson v. Davis, 868 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2017). The federal district court stayed its proceedings to enable Applicant to seek this Court's reconsideration of his Atkins claim. Henderson v. Director, No. 1:06-CV-507 (E.D. Tex. December 19, 2017). Applicant has now submitted the instant "suggestion that [this] court, on its own initiative, reconsider its denial of [his] Atkins claim in light of Moore v. Texas."
While the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not permit the filing of a motion for rehearing following the denial of a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, we may on our own initiative choose to exercise our authority to reconsider our initial disposition of a capital writ. See Ex parte Moreno, 245 S.W.3d 419, 427-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)(stating that we may choose to exercise this authority only "under the most extraordinary of circumstances"). In light of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Moore v. Texas, we exercise our authority to reconsider this case on our own initiative.
This cause is remanded to the habeas court to consider all of the evidence in light of the Moore v. Texas opinion and make a new recommendation to this Court on the issue of intellectual disability. If the habeas court deems it necessary, then it may receive evidence from mental health experts and any witnesses whose evidence the court determines is germane to the question of intellectual disability. The habeas court shall then make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the issue of intellectual disability and any other issue the court deems pertinent to the resolution of this claim.
This cause will be held in abeyance pending the trial court's compliance with this order. The habeas court shall resolve the issue and make the required findings and conclusions within 60 days of the date of this order. Immediately thereafter, the clerk shall forward to this Court a supplemental transcript containing the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, any additional documents filed, and the transcripts of any hearings. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. Do Not Publish