WR-55,161-02
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
March 4, 2015 Transmitted 3/3/2015 4:59:55 PM
Accepted 3/4/2015 9:50:00 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
_________________________________
NO. WR-55-161-02
_________________________________
EX PARTE ERIC DEWAYNE CATHEY,
Applicant.
___________________________________________________________
On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Cause No. 713189-B in the 176th District Court, Harris County
___________________________________________________________
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Layne E. Kruse
State Bar No. 11742550
layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com
Sumera Khan
State Bar No. 24064319
sumera.khan@nortonrosefulbright.com
Emery G. Richards
State Bar No. 24093038
emery.richards@nortonrosefulbright.com
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010-3095
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
Telecopier: (713) 651-5246
Counsel for Eric DeWayne Cathey
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
On January 22, 2015, this Court submitted for rehearing Ex Parte Eric
DeWayne Cathey, No. WR-55-161-02, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1762 (Tex.
Crim. App. Nov. 5, 2014). At issue is how Texas should apply the mandate of
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) to exclude intellectually disabled 1 persons
from execution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Hall v. Florida,
134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) that these determinations be consistent with the medical
community’s current diagnostic framework for intellectual disability. In
overturning the trial court’s finding that Mr. Cathey is mentally retarded and
cannot be executed, this Court upheld the Ex parte Briseño adaptive functioning
factors, refused to allow the clinically-indicated Flynn Effect IQ-score adjustment,
and rejected the finding that the best clinical practice adjusts an IQ score which
was closer to the date of conviction instead of retesting after years of incarceration.
Mr. Cathey acknowledges that upon a grant of rehearing, “[o]ral argument
may, but normally will not, be permitted,” Tex. R. App. P. 79.4, and that if a case
is not set for oral argument “counsel may—within 30 days of the date of the clerk’s
notice—petition the Court to allow argument.” Tex. R. App. P. 75.2. In light of
the fact that it is unclear whether a grant of rehearing has occurred, Mr. Cathey
prays the Court grant his request for oral argument so the unique and precedential
issues in his case may be considered fully.
1
In accord with Hall v. Florida, the term “intellectual disability” is used to refer to the disability previously known
as “mental retardation.” This request uses “mental retardation” since it was used in the trial court findings.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Layne E. Kruse___________
Layne E. Kruse
State Bar No. 11742550
layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com
Sumera Khan
State Bar No. 24064319
sumera.khan@nortonrosefulbright.com
Emery G. Richards
State Bar No. 24093038
emery.richards@nortonrosefulbright.com
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010-3095
Telephone: (713) 651-5151
Telecopier: (713) 651-5246
Counsel for Eric DeWayne Cathey
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was served on
the State of Texas through electronic filing of this document and by mailing a
copy, postage prepaid, to Roe Wilson, Harris County District Attorney’s Office,
1201 Franklin, Houston, Texas 77002 and Jefferson Clendenin, Office of the Texas
Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711 on this 3rd day of March
2015.
/s/ Layne E. Kruse
Layne E. Kruse