Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr. ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-77,038
US CARNELL PETETAN, JR., Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON REHEARING UPON COURT'S OWN MOTION
FROM CAUSE NO. 2012-2331-C1
IN THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT
McLENNAN COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Appellant was convicted of the capital murder of his wife, Kimberly Petetan. TEX . PENAL
CODE § 19.03(a)(2). The jury rejected, in a special issue, Appellant’s claim that he is intellectually
disabled and so categorically ineligible for the death penalty. And the jury answered the statutory
special issues in such a manner that Appellant was sentenced to death. Appeal to this court was
automatic. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 37.071, § 2(h). We affirmed. Petetan v. State, ___ S.W.3d
___, 2017 WL 2839870 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017).
Petetan– 2
Among the points of error rejected were three relating to Appellant’s claim that he is
intellectually disabled. In his tenth claim, Appellant contended that the jury's answer to the
intellectual disability special issue was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
In his eleventh claim, Appellant contended that he is ineligible for the death penalty due to
intellectual disability. And, in his twenty-seventh claim, Appellant contended he was entitled to a
pre-trial determination of his intellectual disability. Specifically, Appellant asked this Court, in
considering his claims, to rework the substantive standard for addressing claims of intellectual
disability.
While this case was pending on rehearing, the United States Supreme Court decided Moore
v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017). In Moore, the Supreme Court held that this Court’s failure to
consider current medical standards and reliance on Briseno failed to comply with the Eighth
Amendment and Supreme Court precedents. The Court vacated the judgment of our Court, and
remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.
We grant rehearing in this case on our own motion so that the Court may consider
Appellant’s tenth, eleventh, and twenty-seventh claims in light of Moore. We order the parties to
file briefs on these three claims in this Court within 60 days of the date of this order. Any extensions
of time shall be obtained from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.
Do not publish