Ex Parte Sosa
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 630
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Applicant murdered a deputy after bank robbery in 1983 and was convicted of capital murder with a death sentence at trial in 1984.
- Applicant filed a habeas corpus petition in 2006 asserting actual innocence and mental retardation; judge found no actual innocence but did find mental retardation and remanded for Briseno-factor analysis.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously set Briseno guidelines for determining mental retardation under Atkins, using AAIDD definition (IQ ≤70, adaptive deficits, onset before 18).
- Briseno factors include seven indicators of adaptive functioning and the court emphasized caution in treating AAIDD guidelines in isolation.
- On remand, the convicting court accepted Dr. Weinstein’s MR diagnosis over the State’s, but adopted Weinstein’s interpretation of the Briseno factors and discussed the last factor despite conflicting with AAIDD guidance; the court remanded again for more findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of Briseno factors to MR determination | Sosa contends Briseno factors must coherently align with MR and the offense facts. | State argues Briseno factors are guidance and need not be all applied; AAIDD guidelines are central. | Remand for further factual findings on Briseno-factor applicability. |
| Role and complexity of the offense in MR assessment | Evidence of offense complexity may conflict with MR status. | Complexity not dispositive per AAIDD; MR depends on overall functioning. | Remand to evaluate consistency of MR with offense and applicant’s role. |
| Credibility and selection of MR expert testimony | Weinstein’s MR conclusion should govern given his methodology. | Saunders’ contrary view and malingering considerations deserve weighing. | Remand to reassess credibility and weighting of experts. |
| Use of adaptive-functioning assessment methods | Clinical judgment and standardized scores may be necessary. | Briseno allows clinical assessment without rigid numerical thresholds. | Remand to clarify how adaptive functioning was determined and its impact on MR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded; national consensus discussed)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Cr.App. 2004) (Guidelines for determining mental retardation in Texas under AAIDD)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (Depicts that not all individuals with disabilities warrant special protections; context matters)
- Ex parte Hearn, 310 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.Cr.App. 2010) (Clinical judgment informs interpretation of IQ scores in MR determinations)
- Sosa v. State, 769 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989) (Background of applicant; prior conviction and procedural posture)