Skip to main content

Ex parte Julius Jerome Murphy v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Ex parte Julius Jerome Murphy

NO. WR–38,198–03

Decided: November 19, 2014

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, § 5.1

In August 1998, a jury convicted applicant of the offense 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 applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal.  Murphy v. State, No. AP–73,194 (Tex.Crim.App. March 24, 2000) (not designated for publication).

Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court on October 20, 2000.   This Court denied relief.   Ex parte Murphy,No. Wr–38,198–02 (tex.Crim.App. April 10, 2002) (not Designated for Publication).  applicant's Subsequent Application Was Received in This Court On January 17, 2006.

In This Subsequent Application, Applicant Alleges That He Is Mentally Retarded and So He Cannot Be Executed Following the Supreme Court's Decision inAtkins v. Virginia,536 U.S. 304 (2002).  in 2006, We Concluded That This Application Made aprima facieCase of Mental Retardation, Sufficient To Satisfy the Requirements for a Subsequent Writ Under Article 11.071, Section 5. We Remanded the Application To the Trial Court for Consideration of Applicant's Claim.

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 and Recommended That Relief Be Denied.

We Have Reviewed the Record and the Trial Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and We Agree With the Trial Court's Recommendation.   based Upon the Trial Court's Findings and Conclusions and Our Own Review, the Relief Sought Is Denied.

It Is So Ordered.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Per curiam.

Copied to clipboard