Capital Habeas Matter
In Maldonado v. Thaler, No. 10-70003, a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where, assuming without deciding that petitioner's evidence regarding his alleged mental retardation rebutted the presumption of correctness that attached to the state habeas court's decision to credit the government's expert's testimony, petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because even disregarding that testimony, he could not meet his burden of showing that the state court's finding that he was not mentally retarded was either an unreasonable application of Atkins or an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court.
As the court wrote: "The petitioner-appellee, Virgilio Maldonado, was sentenced to death in
1997 in Texas state court for a murder committed during the course of a robbery in 1995. After exhausting state-court avenues for postconviction relief, he sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court. The district court denied the petition for habeas relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA)."
- Read the Fifth Circuit's Decision in Maldonado v. Thaler, No. 10-70003