SOSA, EX PARTE PEDRO SOLIS Appeal from 81st District Court of Atascosa County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-76,674 EX PARTE PEDRO SOLIS SOSA, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 7729 FROM THE 81ST DISTRICT COURT OF ATASCOSA COUNTY Per curiam. K ELLER, PJ., dissents. Y EARY, J., not participating. O P I N I O N This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in a capital case that Applicant has filed pursuant to Article 11.071, Section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 In it, Applicant has raised claims of actual innocence and intellectual disability. We deemed these two claims to have satisfied Section 5 and remanded the cause to the 1 T EX . C O D E C RIM . P RO C . art. 11.071 § 5. Sosa – 2 convicting court “to resolve the factual issues raised by the application according to Article 11.071, [S]ections 7 and 9.”2 The convicting court held an evidentiary hearing and recommended that we grant Applicant relief on his claim of intellectual disability, and deny relief on his claim of actual innocence.3 We remanded the case again so that the convicting court could reconsider its recommended finding that Applicant was intellectually disabled in light of “the factors we established in Ex parte Briseno.”4 The convicting court held an additional evidentiary hearing to do so and has again recommended that we grant relief on Applicant’s claim of intellectual disability. While this application was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Moore v. Texas, and held that the Briseno factors, based upon superseded medical standards, create an unacceptable risk that a person with intellectual disabilities will be executed in violation of the Eighth Amendment.5 Having reviewed the record in this case, we determine that the trial court’s findings are supported by the record. Relief is granted on Applicant’s 2 Ex parte Sosa, No. W R-24,852-03, 2006 W L 1266940 (Tex. Crim . App. May 10, 2006) (not designated for publication). 3 W ith respect to Applicant’s actual innocence claim , he presented testim ony at the first hearing from his nephew and co-defendant, Leroy Sosa, in which Leroy recanted his trial testim ony that Applicant was his accom plice in the capital m urder, asserting instead that a m an by the nam e of Valerio Blandquiz had been his real accom plice. Leroy explained that he had blam ed his “slow” uncle because the now-deceased Blandquiz threatened him and his fam ily should he ever reveal Blandquiz’s identity as his true accom plice. The habeas court recom m ends that we deny Applicant’s actual innocence claim . The habeas court’s findings and conclusions in this regard are supported by the record. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W .2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996). 4 Ex parte Sosa, 364 S.W .3d 889, 890 (Tex. Crim . App. 2012) (citing Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W .3d 1 (Tex. Crim . App. 2004)). 5 Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 1044 (2017). Sosa – 3 intellectual disability claim. Applicant’s sentence is reformed to a term of life imprisonment.6 All other relief is denied. Delivered: May 3, 2017 Do not publish 6 Ex parte Van Alstyne, 239 S.W .3d 815, 824 (Tex. Crim . App. 2007). At the tim e of Applicant’s offense, in 1983, the only available alternative punishm ent for capital m urder was life with the possibility of parole. Life without parole was enacted in 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 787, §§ 1, 17, pp. 2705, 2709, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
