Court Opinion

ID: 9956078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-31 21:12:31.765991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.922432
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
          Appeals of Texas
                           ══════════
                           No. AP-77,093
                           ══════════

              RANDALL WAYNE MAYS, Appellant
                                   v.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
        On Appeal from the Denial of a Second Motion
          To Determine Competency to be Executed
     From Cause No. B-15,717 in the 392nd District Court
                     Henderson County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

      YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., joined.

      Today, in a separate proceeding, the Court has granted relief on
Appellant’s claim of intellectual disability. Ex parte Mays, No. WR-
75,105-02, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2024) (not designated for
publication). Accordingly, the Court has reformed Appellant’s death
                                                                MAYS – 2

sentence to a sentence of life without parole. Id. Because Appellant is no
longer subject to the death penalty, the Court declares that this current
review of the convicting court’s denial of his motion challenging his
competence to be executed, under Article 46.05 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure, is moot. Majority Opinion at 4; TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 46.05(l) (providing for this Court’s review of a convicting
court’s determination with respect to competency to be executed).
      In the separate subsequent post-conviction habeas corpus
proceeding, I explained why I dissent to the Court’s grant of relief on
Appellant’s claim of intellectual disability. Mays, No. WR-75,105-02
(Yeary, J., dissenting). And because I would not reform Appellant’s
death sentence to a sentence of life without parole, I cannot agree that
his protest of the convicting court’s adverse ruling on the motion
challenging his competence to be executed is moot.
      I would not dismiss the instant appeal on that basis. Instead, I
would reach the merits of Appellant’s appeal. Because the Court does
not, I respectfully dissent.

FILED:                                         March 27, 2024
PUBLISH