Eldridge, Gerald Cornelius ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. AP-76,256
    GERALD C. ELDRIDGE, Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION REGARDING
    COMPETENCY TO BE EXECUTED FILED IN CAUSE NO. 9403201
    IN THE 178 TH DISTRICT COURT
    HARRIS COUNTY
    Per Curiam. P RICE, J., dissents.
    OPINION
    This is a direct appeal of the denial of a Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
    46.05 motion regarding appellant’s competency to be executed filed in the 178 th District
    Court of Harris County, Cause No. 9403201 styled Ex parte Gerald Cornelius Eldridge.
    In April 1994, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury
    answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
    37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s punishment at death. This Court
    Eldridge – 2
    affirmed applicant’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Eldridge v. State, 
    940 S.W.2d 646
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). This Court denied relief on applicant’s initial post-conviction
    application for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed his subsequent application on February
    9, 2005. Ex parte Eldridge, Nos. WR-60,478-01 and WR-60,478-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb.
    9, 2005)(not designated for publication). On September 24, 2009, applicant filed in the trial
    court an Article 46.05 motion in which he asserted that he was incompetent to be executed.
    See T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. Art. 46.05. Appellant’s execution is set for November 17, 2009.
    After reviewing the record, the trial court found that appellant had failed to make a
    substantial showing of incompetency as required by Article 46.05. It therefore determined
    that it was not required to appoint additional experts or hold a hearing on the motion. Upon
    appellant’s request, the record was then sent to this Court for review. See Art. 46.05(l).
    Because appellant’s motion was filed before the 20 th day prior to his scheduled execution
    date, this Court has the authority to review the trial court’s determination that appellant failed
    to make a substantial showing.
    Having reviewed the record, we hold that the trial court’s ruling was supported by the
    record.   Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s findings on the issue of appellant’s
    competency to be executed. No stay of execution need be granted. Further, the mandate of
    the Court shall issue immediately, and no motions for rehearing shall be entertained.
    Do not publish
    Delivered: November 16, 2009
    

Document Info

Docket Number: AP-76,256

Filed Date: 11/16/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2015