Mays, Randall Wayne
AP-77,055
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Randall Wayne Mays was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; execution scheduled for March 18, 2015.
- Office of Capital Writs (OCW) filed a late motion challenging Mays’s competency to be executed; trial court held a hastened hearing and denied relief, finding only "some doubt" but not a "substantial showing."
- At the threshold hearing Mays could rely only on affidavits and documentary materials (no in-person expert evaluations due to time constraints).
- Record presented: historical psychiatric hospitalizations (1983, 1985), trial-era diagnoses of psychosis/paranoia, later neuropsychological testing showing memory impairment/dementia, contemporaneous prison records and letters showing delusional beliefs, and recent attorneys’ and experts’ affidavits expressing substantial doubt about competency.
- Texas statute (Art. 46.05) creates a two-stage process: (1) threshold substantial-showing stage (entitles defendant to experts and further proceedings if met), and (2) adversarial final hearing where incompetence must be proved by preponderance.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record de novo (considering only evidence of incompetency) and held Mays made the required substantial showing; it vacated the denial and remanded for full competency proceedings including appointment of at least two mental-health experts, and left the stay of execution in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mays made a "substantial showing" of incompetency under Art. 46.05 | Mays argued his historical and recent records, expert affidavits, attorney observations, and neuropsychological findings together met the threshold. | State argued evidence raised only some doubt and was insufficient for a substantial showing. | Court held Mays met the substantial-showing threshold and ordered further competency proceedings. |
| Standard of appellate review for the trial court’s substantial-showing determination | Mays: mixed law-fact question not dependent on demeanor; de novo review appropriate. | State: factual/mixed question turning on credibility and demeanor; review for abuse of discretion. | Court held de novo review applies when trial court properly applied Art. 46.05 and did not weigh competing credibility at threshold stage. |
| Scope/meaning of "responsive pleadings" in Art. 46.05(d) | Implicitly: Mays contended the court should evaluate only defendant’s evidence of incompetency at threshold; responsive pleadings may be non-adversarial. | State: "responsive pleadings" permit adversarial attacks on credibility and relevance without offering additional evidence. | Court held statute does not limit who may file responsive pleadings nor requires they be adversarial; but at threshold the court may consider only evidence of incompetency (not weigh competing credible evidence). |
| Relief/remand required (appointment of experts and further proceedings) | Mays sought appointment of court experts and a full competency hearing. | State opposed further proceedings based on insufficiency of the threshold showing. | Court remanded for full Art. 46.05 proceedings, including appointment of at least two mental-health experts; stayed execution remains in effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1986) (capital defendant who is incompetent may not be executed)
- Panetti v. Quaterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (requires defendant have a rational understanding of the reason for execution and due-process protections for competency claims)
- Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statutory construction of "substantial showing" and threshold-stage procedures under Art. 46.05)
- Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishes threshold and final competency proceedings and procedural protections for expert evidence)