context: As discussed above, the Texas Legislature has not established a statutory scheme for the presentation and determination of an issue of mental retardation in a capital murder trial. However, in the meantime, this Court has formulated temporary judicial guidelines in addressing Atkins claims.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 546 U.S. 7, 7
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the Ninth Circuit erred in commanding Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve mental-retardation claim
citation_a.sentence: See Schriro, 546 U.S. at 7, 126 S.Ct. 7 (holding that the Ninth Circuit erred in commanding Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve mental-retardation claim); see also Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 9 (holding that Atkins does not require a jury determination of mental retardation in a post-conviction proceeding).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 135 S.W.3d 9, 9
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that Atkins does not require a jury determination of mental retardation in a post-conviction proceeding
citation_b.sentence: See Schriro, 546 U.S. at 7, 126 S.Ct. 7 (holding that the Ninth Circuit erred in commanding Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve mental-retardation claim); see also Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 9 (holding that Atkins does not require a jury determination of mental retardation in a post-conviction proceeding).