IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-77,055
RANDALL WAYNE MAYS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DETERMINE
EXECUTION COMPETENCY
FROM CAUSE NO. B-15,717 THE 392 ND DISTRICT COURT
HENDERSON COUNTY
Per curiam. M EYERS, J., dissents.
ORDER
In May 2008, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder. The jury answered the
special issues submitted under Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set
punishment at death. This Court affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence on direct
appeal. Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Appellant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in
the convicting court on May 3, 2010. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Mays, No. WR-
MAYS – 2
75,105-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2011)(not designated for publication). The trial
court subsequently set an execution date of March 18, 2015.
On February 24, 2015, appellant filed a motion in the trial court pursuant to Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46.05 challenging his competency to be executed.1
On February 27, the trial court issued an order in which it found that appellant had failed
to make a threshold showing raising a substantial doubt of his competency to be executed.
Thus, the trial court declined to appoint at least two experts to evaluate appellant.
Appellant now seeks appellate review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to
determine execution competency under Article 46.05.
This Court has determined that further review is necessary. Accordingly,
appellant’s execution is stayed pending further order from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF MARCH, 2015.
Do not publish
1
See Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)(holding that
the Article 46.05 standard for reviewing the competency of inmates to be executed is a
codification of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1989), and remains constitutionally
adequate in the wake of Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007)).