IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
EX PARTE VIRGILIO MALDONADO
NOS. 721568-B and 721568-C IN THE 338TH DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY
O R D E R
This is an application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.
In October 1997, a jury convicted applicant of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set punishment at death. This Court affirmed. Maldonado v. State, 998 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The Court also denied applicant relief on the four claims he raised in his initial writ application. Ex parte Maldonado, No. WR-51,612-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 6, 2002).
Applicant presented three allegations in his first subsequent application. In his first claim, applicant asserted that his execution would violate the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), because he is mentally retarded. In his second claim, applicant asserted that the admission at trial of his tape recorded statement violated the Fifth Amendment. And in his third claim, applicant asserted that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. By written order dated July 2, 2003, applicant's second and third claims were dismissed and his first claim was remanded to the trial court for consideration.
On remand, the trial court conducted a live hearing, after which it entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be denied on applicant's claim. This Court has reviewed the record. We adopt the trial judge's findings and conclusions. Based upon the trial court's findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied.
On April 21, 2005, this Court received applicant's second subsequent application in which he asserted that his rights under the Vienna Convention were violated. This Court reviewed applicant's second subsequent application under Article 11.071 § 5, and concluded that it failed to meet one of the exceptions provided for in the statute. Applicant's second subsequent application is dismissed. See Ex parte Medellin, S.W.3d , No. AP-75,207 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2006).
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007.
Do Not Publish