Opinion
No. 87-2466.
August 15, 1989.
Curtis C. Mason, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Texas Dept. of Corr., Huntsville, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.
Paula C. Offenhauser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; William M. Steger, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESBefore REAVLEY and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
Acting as a panel quorum as in original decision at 832 F.2d 915.
The Supreme Court has concluded that the jury was not provided with a vehicle for responding to the mitigating evidence of Penry's mental retardation and abused background, and the Court has ordered that Penry be resentenced. Penry v. Lynaugh, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).
Accordingly, the district court's judgment denying the writ is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for an order complying with the directions of the Supreme Court.