## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S N O. AP-77,093 RANDALL WAYNE MAYS, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEX AS
ON APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A SECOND MOTION TO DETERMINE EX ECUTION COMPETENCY FROM CAUSE NO. B-15,717 THE 392ND DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY H E R V E Y , J ., delivered the opinion of the Court in w hich R I C H A R D S O N , N E W E L L , W A L K E R , and M C C L U R E , JJ., joined. Y E A R Y , J., filed a dissenting opinion in w hich K E L L E R , P.J., joined. K E E L and S L A U G H T E R , JJ., dissented. O P I N I O N In 2008, Appellant was convicted of capital m urder and sentenced to death. This Court af f i rm ed Appellant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Mays v. State , 318 S.W
. 3d 368 (Tex. Crim . App. 2010). W e denied relief on his initial post-conviction application f

or a writ of

habeas corpus. Ex parte Mays , N o. W R -75,105-01 (Tex. Crim
.MAYS—2

App. Mar. 16, 2011) (not designated f or publication). Appellant’s execution was set f or March 18, 2015. In February 2015, Appellant f iled a m otion in the trial court challenging his com petency to be executed. See T E X . C O D E C R IM . P R O C . art. 46.05(a) (“A person who is incom p etent to be executed m ay not be executed.”). 1 The trial judge denied Appellant’s m otion, f i nding that Appellant had f ailed to m ake a threshold showing raising a substantial doubt of his com petency to be executed. See Art. 46.05(d) (“On receipt of a m otion f iled under [ Article 46.05], the trial court shall determ ine whether the def endant has raised a substantial doubt of the def e n dant’s
com petency to be executed[ .]”). Appellant appealed the trial judge’s decision to this Court. W e determ i ned that f urther review was necessary , and we stay ed Appellant’s execution. W e held that Appellant m ade “a substantial showing that he was incom petent to be executed.” M

ays v. State , 476 S.W .3d 454, 456 (Tex. Crim . App. 2015). W e set aside the trial judge’s order deny ing relief , and we rem anded this cause to the trial court f or f urther com

petency proceedings, including the appointm ent of m ental health experts. Id. at 462. Af ter an evidentiary

hearing was held in August 2017, the trial judge determ ined that Appellant was com

petent to be executed. Appellant then appealed the trial judge’s decision to this Court. W e af f irm ed the trial judge’s decision and lif ted the stay

of execution. Mays v. State , No. AP-77,055 (Tex. Crim . App. June 5, 2019) (not designated

1 U nless otherwise indicated, all future references to Articles refer to the Code o f Criminal Procedure.MAYS—3

f or publication). Appellant was again set f or execution. In Septem

ber 2019, he f

iled another m otion in the trial court challenging his com petency to be executed. The trial judge denied the
m otion in Novem

ber 2019, f

inding that Appellant f

a iled to “overcom e the presum ption of
com petency suf f i cient to entitle him

to a new hearing under [ Article 46.05].” See Art. 46.05(e) (providing a presum ption of com petency if a def endant previously

f iled a m otion under Article 46.05 and was determ ined to be com petent). Appellant thereaf ter appealed the trial judge’s decision to this Court. In April 2020, Appellant f iled in the trial court a subsequent application f or a writ of habeas corpus. He also f iled a m otion f

or a stay of execution in this Court in May 2020. Appellant raised m ultiple allegations in his subsequent habeas application, including a claim

that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible f or the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002). W e stay ed Appellant’s execution and
rem anded the subsequent habeas application to the trial court f or a review of

the m erits of the intellectual disability claim
. Ex parte Mays , No. W R-75,105-02 (Tex. Crim
. App. May 7 , 2020) (not designated f or publication). In February

2023, the trial court signed “Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” recom m ending that relief be granted on Appellant’s intellectual disability claim
. Based upon the trial court’s f indings and conclusions and our own review, we granted habeas relief

by ref orm ing Appellant’s sentence of death to a sentence of

lif eMAYS—4

im p risonm ent without parole. 2 Ex parte Mays , No. W R-75,105-02 (Tex. Crim . App. Mar. 27, 2024). Theref

ore, Appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s determ ination of his
com petency to be executed is rendered m oot, and the appeal is dism issed. DELIVERED: March 27, 2024 PUBLISH

2 W e dism i ssed Appellant’s other habeas claim s a s a n a b use of the writ without reviewing the m erits of

those claim s.