Jul 22 2009 2:55PM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 5129962436 ene) 2008 S:S6Pn COURT OF CRIMI IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE. WR-54,07. 02 |EX PARTE RODERICK DASHAD NEWTON AND MOTION FOR|STAY OF EXECUTION FROM CAUSE) NO. W99-36618-I(B) IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. DALLAS COUNTY ON APPLICATION tay POST-CONVICTION WRIT SrNO. Wo ‘ORPUS Per Curi HNSON, J., joins but would also remand ap icant’s fourth allegation. KELL J., and KEASLER, J., concur. MEYERS, J., dissents. ORDER This is a subscquent| application for writ 9f habeas corpus filed purjuant to the provisions of Texay Code of (Criminal Procedure Afticle 11.071, § 5, and a motion for stay of execution, In February 2000, a jury found applicant guilty of the offens¢ of capital mhurder. The jury answered the|spedial issues submitted pursuant to Texas Codd of Crimingll Procedure Article 37.071, and thf trial court, accordingly, set applicant’s| purtishment at Heath, ThisJul 22 2008 2:55PM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 5 Court affirmed app} AP-73,778 (Tex. Crim. App. J his initial post-conyietion ap; December 10, 2001, | This Cor ‘01 (Tex Crim. App] Jan} 15, 2003)(not designated fo1 application was fil Applicant pi asserts that he is Supreme Court's allegation, applicant asserts that the State violated by withholding ma applicant makes s ied in|the tri ‘esentts four ct 1, exch feral lait ant’s conviction and sentence jinjon. in| Atkins v. Virginia, rt denied applicant reli fal court on July 21, 21 ipatory evidence fro lication for writ of habeas corpus ef, Ex part 9. lentally retarded and his execution would the defen 129962436 Newton - 2 yn direct appeal.) Newton v.|State, No. Je 12, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed in the convicting court on 'Neipton, No. WIR-54,073- publication). Applicant’s dubsequent allegations in his application. In his first allegatiow, applicant | violate the Unjted States 336 U.S. 304 (2002). In his second cady v. Maryland, 373 U.S|83 (1963), ie. In his thirdJallegation, hs regarding his competency. And, it his fourthjallegation, applicant claims tpt hg received ineffective assistance of counsel af the punishfnent phase of his trial becau: investigation. We have re} requirements of A\ execution and rem} Applicant's third are, therefore, dist hifs att rticld 11.0 1 fourth c| .d the application to the trial c fneys failed to condul 1, §5. Accordingly, aims do not satisfy the! wed the application and find thet allegati grant ap) wart for a li requirement a reasonably| competent] mitigation Ins gne and tw4 satisfy the licant’s motion to stay his ‘e hgaring on tise claims. offArticle 11.971, § 5 andJul 22 2009 2:55PM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 5129962436 ITISSOO Do Not Publish DERED THIS THE 22"? DAY OF JULY, 3009,