# Ex Parte Rodriguez

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 15, 2005 · 164 S.W.3d 400

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631159

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Steve RODRIGUEZ
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 15, 2005
- **Citations:** 164 S.W.3d 400; 2005 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 913; 2005 WL 1398132
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Cochran, Hervey, Holcomb, Price
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631159

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that Atkins applicant's history of inhalant abuse and unfortunate upbringing leading to anti-social traits may be the cause of limitations in adaptive skills as opposed to applicant's being mentally retarded

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code op CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Article 11.071, § 5. This cause was remanded to the convicting court for consideration of applicant’s claim that he is mentally retarded and his execution would violate the United States Constitution.
The convicting court conducted a hearing, in which the applicant and the State presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced exhibits in support of their respective positions. After consideration, the judge of the convicting court entered his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial judge recommended that relief be denied.
This Court has reviewed the record with respect to applicant’s allegations. We adopt the trial judge’s findings and conclusions. Applicant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has adaptive behavioral deficits sufficient to be considered mentally retarded or to place him in that category of persons for whom a national consensus against execution exists. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 317 , 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Based upon the trial court’s findings and conclusions and our own review, the relief sought is denied.
HERVEY, J., not participating.
HOLCOMB, J., dissents.
COCHRAN, J., filed a statement concurring in the denial of relief in which PRICE, J., joined.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631159. Public record. Not legal advice.