Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Daniel Angel
PLATA ESTRADA
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics:
Robbery
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder:
May 6,
1995
Date of birth:
August 2,
1975
Victim profile: Murlidhar
Mahbubani (convenience store clerk)
Method of murder:
Shooting (.25 caliber pistol)
Location: Harris County, Texas, USA
Status: Sentenced to death on December 11, 1996. Commuted to
life in prison on January 16, 2008
The United States Court
of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit
IN CAUSE NO. 693143-B FROM THE
351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
O P I N I O N
This is a subsequent application
for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts
that he is mentally retarded and may not be executed. We remanded
this claim to the trial court for resolution.
Applicant was convicted of
capital murder on October 14, 1996, and the jury answered the
special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, Article 11.071, in favor of the State. In accordance
with the jury's answers, the trial court sentenced Applicant to
death. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in an unpublished
opinion,
Plata v.
State, No. 72,639 (Tex. Crim. App. July
8, 1998),
and Applicant's
initial Article 11.071 application for writ of habeas corpus was
denied in an unpublished order, Ex parte Plata, No. WR-46,749-01
(Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2000).
Applicant filed a subsequent habeas writ
application on July 18, 2003, asserting that he is mentally
retarded and cannot be executed after the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
(2002) (holding that the death penalty is excessive punishment for
a mentally retarded criminal).
We determined that this claim met
the requirements for consideration under Article 11.071, Section
5, and remanded the matter to the trial court for resolution.Ex parte Plata, No.46,749-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sep. 29,
2004).
The trial court held a hearing
at which there was testimony that Applicant is mentally retarded
and testimony that he is not mentally retarded. The trial court
finds that Applicant is mentally retarded and recommends that we
grant relief. It has returned the case to this Court with its
findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have reviewed the
record of the proceedings on remand. The trial court's findings of
fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record, and we
adopt them as our own. We conclude that Applicant is mentally
retarded and may not be executed. The relief Applicant seeks is
granted.
Applicant's sentence is reformed
from death to life imprisonment.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 16TH
DAY OF JANUARY, 2008.
