Texas Executed Mexican Mafia Anthony Martinez Perez After He Ordered the Murder of Two Gang Members.

March 6th, 2007, Huntsville, Texas. Inside the prison walls, execution day began like so many others. Correctional officers followed a routine they had performed countless times before, preparing the execution chamber with quiet precision. But the man waiting at the center of that routine was anything but ordinary.
Robert Anthony Martinez Perez was about to become the seventh inmate executed in Texas that year. To most people, he was simply another man convicted of capital murder. But prosecutors believed that description barely scratched the surface. They didn’t see Perez as just another killer. They called him a general, not a military general, but one of the highest ranking leaders inside the Texas Mexican Mafia, one of the state’s most feared prison gangs.
According to federal prosecutors, Perez wasn’t simply carrying out orders. He was helping give them. Long before he entered the execution chamber, he had spent years navigating a world built on loyalty, fear, and violence. He survived prison, gang politics, federal racketeering investigations, and years of appeals. But the crime that ultimately condemned him to death wasn’t committed against a police officer or a rival gang.
According to prosecutors, it was committed against two men from his own organization. Robert Rivas and Joseé Travieso became victims of an internal power struggle that investigators said had divided the Texas Mexican mafia into rival factions. What began as a battle for leadership would end in execution style killings, a capital murder conviction and nearly 13 years on death row.
But to understand how Robert Anthony Martinez Perez ended up strapped to a gurnie inside the Huntsville execution chamber, we have to go back to the beginning. Because this isn’t just the story of an execution. It’s the story of how power, loyalty, and betrayal inside one of Texas’s most violent criminal organizations led to two murders and ultimately to the execution of one of its alleged highest ranking leaders.
Long before Robert Anthony Martinez Perez became one of the most feared names in the Texas prison system, he was simply another boy growing up in San Antonio, Texas. Decades before prosecutors would stand before a jury describing him as a highranking leader inside the Texas Mexican mafia, his story began in a city that was rapidly changing, one that during the second half of the 20th century struggled with poverty, gang activity, and rising violent crime.
Robert Anthony Martinez Perez was born on June 29th, 1958 in Beexer County, home to the city of San Antonio. At the time, San Antonio was already one of Texas’s largest cities, known for its rich Hispanic culture, military presence, and growing workingclass neighborhoods. But beneath that vibrant culture, many communities were also dealing with economic hardship, limited opportunities, and increasing street violence.
These conditions would later provide fertile ground for gangs that would eventually extend their influence far beyond city streets and into Texas prisons. Unlike many notorious criminals whose childhoods have been documented through interviews, biographies, or family accounts, remarkably little has survived about Robert Perez’s early years.
Public court records do not identify his parents. They do not discuss his upbringing. There are no publicly available interviews with siblings, childhood friends, teachers, or neighbors. There is no documented history describing whether he experienced abuse, neglect, or trauma as a child. Likewise, there is no verified public information discussing whether he was ever married or had children.
While many death row inmates leave behind extensive personal histories, Robert Perez remains unusually absent from the historical record outside of his criminal cases. That means historians, journalists, and documentary filmmakers cannot honestly fill those gaps with speculation. The official records simply begin discussing Robert Perez once he entered the criminal justice system.
What is known is that Perez grew up during a period when Texas itself was changing. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, prison gangs were beginning to transform organized crime inside the state’s correctional facilities. Street gangs increasingly became connected to prison organizations, and inmates who entered prison often left with stronger criminal connections than they had when they first arrived.
San Antonio was no exception. Neighborhood gangs had become part of everyday life in many communities. Young men who drifted into crime often found themselves cycling between county jails, state prisons, and the streets. Inside prison, those local street rivalries frequently evolved into organized criminal enterprises with strict rules, leadership structures, and long memories.
By the time Robert Perez reached adulthood, prison gangs were becoming more organized, more disciplined, and significantly more violent than they had been only a decade earlier. Official records indicate that Perez left school after completing only the ninth grade. Why he dropped out has never been publicly explained. Whether it was financial hardship, lack of interest, family circumstances, or growing involvement in crime remains unknown.
Like many young men without advanced education, he found work as a laborer, performing manual jobs that required physical effort rather than formal training. For a brief moment, his life may have appeared ordinary. He had employment. He lived in one of Texas’s largest cities. There was still an opportunity to build a different future.
But somewhere along the way, that future began slipping away. The public record doesn’t tell us exactly when Robert Perez first committed a crime. It doesn’t describe juvenile arrests. It doesn’t identify his earliest offenses. Instead, the historical trail suddenly becomes much darker when his name begins appearing in court records connected to violent crime.
Looking back now, investigators would eventually describe him not as a man who stumbled into violence late in life, but as someone who became deeply embedded in a criminal world that rewarded intimidation, loyalty, and brutality. Whether that transformation began on the streets of San Antonio or later inside the Texas prison system is impossible to say with certainty.
What can be said is that by the early 1990s, Robert Perez was no longer an ordinary laborer trying to earn a living. He had become a convicted violent offender, and prison would expose him to a network of organized criminals whose influence would ultimately define the rest of his life. The Texas prison system during those years was more than a place of incarceration.
For many inmates, it became a place where criminal organizations recruited new members, strengthened existing alliances, and established chains of command that extended well beyond prison walls. Among those organizations was the Texas Mexican Mafia, a prison gang that would eventually grow into one of the state’s most feared criminal enterprises.
Exactly when Robert Perez became associated with the organization has never been publicly documented. No court record identifies the precise date he joined. No surviving interview explains how he earned the trust of its leaders. But by the time prosecutors introduced evidence years later, they no longer described him as a recruit.
They described him as one of its leaders. That transformation from a ninth grade dropout working manual labor jobs in San Antonio to a man prosecutors believed held one of the highest ranks inside the Texas Mexican mafia was built through years of violence, prison life, and criminal influence.
The first major step down that path came not through organized crime, but through a brutal stabbing that nearly cost another man his life. Unlike the capital murders that would later make national headlines, this earlier attack is rarely discussed. Yet, it provides one of the clearest glimpses into the escalating violence that marked Perez’s criminal career long before he was accused of leading a gang execution.
According to records maintained by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Perez was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon. The offense stemmed from what officials described as a domestic dispute. Public records provide only limited details about the circumstances leading up to the confrontation.
They do not identify the victim by name, nor do they explain the relationship between the two men or the argument that escalated into violence. What they do reveal is disturbing. During the attack, Perez used a knife to stab a 38-year-old man repeatedly, including wounds to the heart and stomach, areas of the body where even a single wound can quickly become fatal.
The fact that the victim survived, is the reason the charge was attempted voluntary manslaughter rather than homicide. Investigators classified the knife as a deadly weapon, reflecting both its use and the severity of the injuries inflicted. This was not a minor assault. It was a violent crime that demonstrated a willingness to use potentially lethal force during a personal conflict.
Perez was sentenced to 10 years in prison. For many offenders, a sentence of that length can become a turning point, an opportunity to reconsider the choices that led them there. For Perez, prison became something entirely different. During the 1980s, Texas prisons were experiencing a dramatic shift. Prison gangs were becoming more sophisticated, more disciplined, and more influential.
Organizations such as the Texas Mexican Mafia offered inmates protection, status, and access to criminal networks. But membership also demanded loyalty, and often violence. The public record does not state exactly when Robert Perez became affiliated with the Texas Mexican Mafia.
There is no document that says he joined on this date. There is no sworn testimony describing his initiation. Because of that, it would be inaccurate to claim that he entered prison already as a gang member or that this particular sentence marked the exact beginning of his involvement. What is documented, however, is what happened later.
Years afterward, federal prosecutors would identify Perez as one of the organization’s highest ranking leaders. A remarkable rise that almost certainly required years of involvement and trust within the gang. Whether that rise began during this prison sentence or shortly afterward cannot be established with certainty, but it is clear that by the early 1990s, he had become deeply connected to the organization.
Perez did not serve the entire 10-year sentence behind bars. He was released on parole in 1990, giving him another opportunity to remain free, but that opportunity was short-lived. Official records show that he violated the conditions of his parole and was returned to prison. The available documents do not specify the exact nature of the violation, only that it was serious enough to send him back into custody.
Eventually, Perez was released again, this time under mandatory supervision in 1992. He was still relatively young, and he had another chance to rebuild his life. Instead, within only a few years, his name would become tied to one of the most significant gang-lated murder cases in Texas. Looking back, this first violent conviction reveals a pattern that would continue throughout Perez’s criminal life.
Violence was no longer an isolated incident. It had become part of how he resolved conflict. Neither the criminal justice systems intervention nor his time in prison and on parole changed the direction his life was taking. If anything, the years surrounding his imprisonment appear to have placed him closer to the organized criminal world that would later dominate his life.
By the early 1990s, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez was no longer viewed by investigators as simply another former inmate with a violent past. The laborer from San Antonio had disappeared. According to federal prosecutors, he had risen through the ranks of an organization that had become one of the most influential prison gangs operating in Texas, the Texas Mexican Mafia, often referred to as Mexican.
Although it shared part of its name with the better known California Mexican Mafia, the two organizations were separate. They developed independently, had different leadership, and controlled different territories. The Texas Mexican Mafia was founded in the 1980s by inmates within the Texas prison system and eventually expanded its influence beyond prison walls into communities across the state.
Federal investigators alleged that the organization operated like a structured criminal enterprise rather than a loose collection of gang members. Court records described a hierarchy with defined leadership roles and responsibilities. At the top was the president, a position held by Herbert Huerta, one of the organization’s founders.
Beneath him were trusted leaders who helped oversee the gang’s activities. Prosecutors alleged that Robert Perez held the rank of general, placing him among the highest ranking members in the organization. Below that level were captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and soldiers, each with increasing responsibility, but ultimately expected to answer to those above them.
To investigators, that distinction mattered. Perez was not portrayed as someone carrying out random acts of violence on his own. Prosecutors argued that he occupied a position of authority inside an organization that used intimidation and violence to maintain control and discipline. If the government’s allegations were accurate, he was part of the leadership responsible for helping direct the enterprise rather than simply following instructions.
According to federal court records, the Texas Mexican mafia generated money through a variety of criminal activities. Prosecutors alleged that members participated in drug trafficking, extortion, armed robberies, assaults, and other violent offenses. Businesses and individuals connected to the gang could be pressured to make payments, sometimes described in court as taxes, to demonstrate loyalty or avoid retaliation.
These activities were central to the government’s racketeering case and formed part of the evidence used to argue that the organization functioned as an ongoing criminal enterprise. As investigators pieced together the structure of the gang, they concluded that loyalty was one of its defining principles. Members who followed orders and remained faithful to the leadership were rewarded with trust and influence.
Those suspected of betrayal could face severe consequences. This culture of loyalty and discipline would later become central to understanding the murders that ultimately sent Perez to death row. For years, the organization appeared to function under Herbert Huerta’s leadership. But that stability would not last.
A major change in leadership would expose divisions inside the gang, turning former allies into rivals and setting the stage for a deadly conflict. By then, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez had become far more than a gang member in the eyes of prosecutors. He had become one of the men they believed helped run the organization. And when the leadership crisis began, his position placed him at the center of events that would forever change his life.
Years before Robert Anthony Martinez Perez faced a capital murder trial in Texas, federal investigators had already spent considerable time examining the broader organization in which they believed he played a leading role. Their investigation extended far beyond one double homicide. According to federal prosecutors, the Texas Mexican Mafia operated as a criminal enterprise whose activities crossed prison walls, county lines, and state boundaries.
To address that alleged enterprise, the government relied on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. Rather than focusing on a single crime, a RICO prosecution attempts to show that an organization exists for the purpose of committing a pattern of criminal activity.
The indictment described an organization that prosecutors alleged was involved in a wide range of offenses. These included drug trafficking, extortion, robberies, assaults, attempted murders, murders, and other acts of violence committed over a period of years. Federal investigators argued that these crimes were not isolated incidents, but were connected through the leadership and structure of the Texas Mexican Mafia.
It is important to distinguish between the allegations against the organization as a whole and the crimes for which Robert Perez was personally convicted. The government alleged that the enterprise was responsible for numerous murders and attempted murders committed by different members in furtherance of the gang’s objectives.
However, Perez’s Texas death sentence was based on the murders of Robert Rivas and Joseé Traviero, not on every violent act described in the broader federal case. To build their prosecution, investigators gathered evidence from multiple sources. Court records describe intercepted communications, witness testimony, prison correspondence, telephone records, and other materials that prosecutors argued demonstrated coordination among members of the organization.
The government also presented evidence concerning the movement of information and instructions between incarcerated leaders and members operating outside prison, illustrating how investigators believed the enterprise maintained influence despite many of its leaders being behind bars. Federal prosecutors argued that the organization’s activities extended beyond simple street crime.
They alleged that members worked together, communicated across jurisdictions, and carried out criminal acts in support of the enterprise. This was one reason the federal government viewed the case as a significant organized crime prosecution rather than a collection of unrelated offenses. For Robert Perez, these allegations had profound consequences.
By the time he stood trial in federal court, prosecutors no longer portrayed him as an individual offender acting alone. They argued that he was one of the senior leaders within a criminal organization that relied on discipline, loyalty, and violence to maintain its influence. Those allegations would later be presented during a lengthy federal trial where Perez and several other alleged leaders faced racketeering charges.
But even as the federal investigation continued, another crisis was unfolding inside the Texas Mexican mafia itself. It was a crisis that no amount of organizational discipline could prevent. The gang’s founder was about to lose control, and the struggle over who would replace him would end in bloodshed.
For years, Herbert Huerta had been one of the central figures within the Texas Mexican mafia. As one of the organization’s founders and its president, his authority carried enormous weight. Decisions flowed from the top and members were expected to follow them. Then everything changed. Huerta received a life sentence in federal prison, a development that created uncertainty within the organization.
Although he remained an influential figure, his imprisonment forced the gang to confront a difficult question. who would lead the San Antonio faction in his absence. According to court records, Huerta selected Diane Laura Guzman to oversee the organization’s operations in San Antonio.
It was a decision that would have lasting consequences. Not everyone accepted it. One influential member, Luis Blue Adams, opposed Guzman’s appointment. What began as a disagreement over leadership soon developed into a broader division within the organization. Members who had once worked together found themselves forced to choose between competing factions.
Investigators later described the period as one of intense internal conflict. Trust disappeared. Long-standing relationships fractured. Suspicion spread throughout the organization. In an enterprise where loyalty was considered essential, choosing the wrong side could be fatal. Among those caught in the middle were Robert Rivas and Joseé Travieso.
According to prosecutors, the two men were associated with the faction that opposed Perez and those aligned with Huerta’s chosen leadership. Investigators concluded that their perceived loyalty to the rival group made them targets during the escalating power struggle. The dispute was no longer simply about leadership. It had become a violent struggle for control.
As prosecutors reconstructed the events, they argued that the murders of Rivas and Travaso were not spontaneous acts of violence, but were planned and carried out as part of the internal conflict consuming the organization. To the outside world, the murders initially appeared to be another double homicide. To investigators, they represented something much larger.
Proof of how internal disputes within organized crime groups could escalate into deadly violence, with former associates turning against one another when power and loyalty collided. The decisions made during this leadership struggle would become the foundation of the capital murder case that followed. And from that moment forward, Robert Perez’s future would be determined not by his position within the gang, but by what a Texas jury concluded had happened during those two murders.
By the spring of 1994, the internal conflict within the Texas Mexican mafia had reached a dangerous point. What had begun, as a dispute over leadership, had evolved into a violent struggle between rival factions. Investigators would later argue that in this environment, loyalty became a matter of life and death. According to prosecutors, Robert Rivas and Joseé Travaso had aligned themselves with the opposing faction.
Whether they believed the disagreement would eventually be resolved or underestimated the seriousness of the conflict is unknown. What investigators concluded, however, was that they had become targets. On April 17th, 1994, a meeting was arranged. To the victims, it appeared to be a gathering with fellow gang associates.
There was little reason, at least on the surface, to suspect they were walking into an ambush. Meetings among members and associates were common, particularly during periods of internal tension when disputes, alliances, and instructions needed to be discussed. Instead, prosecutors alleged the meeting had another purpose entirely.
According to the evidence presented at trial, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez, Joe Sandival, and Javier Garcia were waiting. The encounter lasted only moments. Investigators determined that multiple firearms were used during the attack, including a fat 380 caliber pistol, a 9mm pistol, and a 38 caliber revolver. Ballistics evidence later helped investigators establish that more than one weapon had been fired, supporting the prosecution’s argument that multiple participants took part in the killings.
The victims were shot repeatedly. The prosecution argued that the attack was deliberate and coordinated rather than spontaneous. The evidence suggested the victims had been lured to the location under false pretenses before the shooting began. As detectives reconstructed the sequence of events, they concluded this was not the result of an argument that suddenly turned violent.
They believed it had been planned in advance. That conclusion became one of the central themes of the prosecution’s case. Prosecutors argued that Perez was not simply present during the attack. They portrayed him as one of the leaders responsible for directing the operation. Their argument was based on both his alleged position within the Texas Mexican mafia and testimony presented during the investigation.
The state’s theory was that the murders were carried out to eliminate members viewed as loyal to the rival faction during the organization’s internal power struggle. In other words, investigators believed these were not random victims. They were selected because of where they stood in the gang’s civil war.
That alleged motive gave detectives an explanation for why two fellow gang associates would suddenly become targets. Texas law also affected how prosecutors charged the case. Perez was indicted for capital murder because two people were intentionally killed during the same criminal transaction. Under Texas law, the intentional killing of more than one person in a single course of conduct is one of the circumstances that elevates a homicide to capital murder, making the death penalty a possible punishment upon conviction. The
distinction was significant. Had only one person been killed, the case might have proceeded under a different homicide statute. Instead, the deaths of Robert Rivas and Joseé Travaso in the same incident exposed Perez to the most severe punishment available under Texas law.
For investigators, however, solving the case would prove far more difficult than understanding the legal charge. The suspected participants belonged to an organization built on secrecy and loyalty. Witnesses feared retaliation. Gang members rarely cooperated and detectives faced the daunting task of proving what had happened inside one of Texas most powerful criminal organizations.
Double homicides connected to organized crime are rarely straightforward. Unlike many murder investigations, detectives could not rely on a clear motive or cooperative witnesses from the beginning. Instead, they found themselves investigating a case that led directly into the secretive world of the Texas Mexican Mafia.
From the outset, investigators worked to identify not only who had carried out the killings, but also why they had occurred. As evidence was gathered, detectives began to see a pattern. The deaths of Robert Rivas and Joseé Travieso appeared closely connected to the leadership dispute that had divided the organization into competing factions.
Understanding that conflict became essential. Without it, the murders looked like another gang shooting. With it, investigators believed they had uncovered a motive. Physical evidence also played an important role. According to court records, ballistics examinations established that multiple firearms had been used during the attack.
That finding supported the prosecution’s argument that more than one individual participated in the killings and helped corroborate witness testimony presented during the investigation. Just as important were the interviews conducted by investigators. Law enforcement spoke with witnesses, gang associates, and individuals familiar with the organization.
As often happens in organized crime investigations, information came from multiple sources rather than a single eyewitness. Detectives compared those accounts with physical evidence and other investigative findings to determine which details were consistent. The investigation eventually expanded beyond local authorities.
The case drew the attention of state and federal law enforcement because it intersected with broader investigations into the Texas Mexican mafia. The Texas Rangers assisted in the investigation while federal authorities were already examining the organization through a wide-ranging racketeering inquiry. Those parallel investigations proved valuable.
Evidence gathered during the larger organized crime investigation helped investigators better understand the structure of the organization, the relationships among its members, and the significance of the internal leadership dispute. Rather than viewing the murders as isolated acts, investigators believed they were part of a broader pattern of violence connected to the gang’s struggle for control.
As the investigation progressed, detectives identified Robert Anthony Martinez Perez, Joe Sandival, and Javier Garcia as the principal participants in the killings. Their conclusions were based on the combination of witness testimony, physical evidence, and the broader understanding of the conflict inside the organization.
The investigation also demonstrated how internal divisions within criminal organizations can sometimes become a source of evidence. As rival factions emerged, loyalties shifted. People who once protected one another became separated by distrust. Those fractures helped investigators reconstruct what had happened and identify a motive that might otherwise have remained hidden.
Eventually, prosecutors believed they had assembled sufficient evidence to bring the case before a jury. The murders that began as an internal gang dispute would now be judged in a Texas courtroom. Because of the publicity surrounding the case in Beexer County, the capital murder trial was moved to Dallas County to help ensure an impartial jury.
For prosecutors, the trial focused on proving that Robert Anthony Martinez Perez intentionally participated in the murders of Robert Rivas and Joseé Travaso and that the killings were part of a planned attack stemming from the gang’s internal conflict. Jurors heard testimony from witnesses and were presented with physical evidence, including ballistics findings and evidence concerning the relationships among those involved.
The prosecution argued that the murders were deliberate and that Perez played a leadership role in carrying them out. The defense challenged the state’s evidence, but after hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the jury found Perez guilty of capital murder. The trial then moved into the punishment phase.
Under Texas law, jurors considered additional evidence before determining whether the death penalty should be imposed. Ultimately, they answered the required special issues in a manner that resulted in a sentence of death. For most defendants, that would have marked the end of the courtroom proceedings. For Perez, another major prosecution was still underway.
Federal authorities had also charged him in a sweeping RICO case involving the Texas Mexican Mafia. Unlike the state murder prosecution, the federal case focused on the alleged criminal enterprise itself. Prosecutors argued that the organization functioned as a continuing racketeering enterprise involved in drug trafficking, extortion, robberies, assaults, murders, and other crimes.
Perez was identified as one of the organization’s alleged senior leaders. Following a lengthy federal trial, Perez and several codefendants were convicted of rakateeering related offenses. He received a life sentence in the federal case. Although the federal life sentence was significant, it did not replace the Texas death sentence.
The state capital murder conviction remained in effect. Like nearly every inmate sentenced to death, Perez pursued numerous appeals. His conviction was reviewed on direct appeal. He later filed an application for state habius corpus relief, arguing that legal errors had occurred during his case. When those efforts were unsuccessful, he sought federal habius corpus review.
The federal courts carefully examined the claims raised by the defense. Ultimately, however, the conviction and sentence were upheld. Over the years, each stage of review ended with the same result. The courts declined to overturn the conviction or death sentence. As the legal proceedings came to an end, Perez remained on Texas death row.
He would spend approximately 13 years there. Death row was a world defined by routine and uncertainty. Appeals moved slowly. Execution dates could be scheduled months in advance. Some inmates received new hearings. Others obtained stays of execution. For Perez, those possibilities gradually disappeared as each appeal reached its conclusion.
By early 2007, there were no further legal barriers preventing the state of Texas from carrying out the sentence imposed years earlier. The date was set. After years of investigations, two major prosecutions, and more than a decade on death row, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez’s legal journey was coming to an end. The final chapter would unfold inside the execution chamber in Huntsville, Texas, where the sentence imposed by the jury would ultimately be carried out.
Nearly 13 years after a Texas jury sentenced him to death, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez reached the final day of his life. On March 6th, 2007, the routine inside the Huntsville unit began long before the execution chamber opened to witnesses. Correctional officers followed the same procedures they had carried out for every scheduled execution.
Perez spent his final hours under close observation as prison officials completed the steps required before carrying out the sentence that had been imposed years earlier. Like other condemned inmates in Texas, Perez was offered a final meal. Records show it was far from modest. Five pieces of fried chicken, a double meat cheeseburger with cheese and onion, onion rings, three cheese and onion enchiladas, a whole onion, French fries, hot sauce, pico de gallo, jalapenos, and two Cokes.
As the execution hour approached, his family members and attorneys were given an opportunity to see him one final time. Behind another window waited the relatives of the victims along with members of the media and prison officials, all prepared to witness the conclusion of a case that had begun more than a decade earlier. Shortly after 6:00 p.m.
, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez was escorted into the execution chamber. Witnesses described him as calm, even smiling as his son’s wife and brother entered the viewing chamber. He was secured to the gurnie as prison staff completed the final preparations. Before the lethal injection began, he was given an opportunity to make a final statement.
Addressing those present, Perez spoke directly to his family. Ernest, Christopher, Ontar, and Jennifer. Tell all the kids I love them and never forget. Tell Bobby Mr. Bear will be dancing for them. Tell Bear not to feel bad. My love always. I love you all. Stay strong, Mary. Take care of them. I love you, too.
I am ready, Warden. I got my boots on like a cowboy. With his final statement complete, the execution proceeded. The lethal injection was administered according to Texas protocol. Within minutes, Robert Anthony Martinez Perez was pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. With that, one of the men federal prosecutors had described as a general within the Texas Mexican Mafia was gone.
His execution closed one chapter of the story. But it could never undo what had happened on April 17th, 1994. Robert Rivas and Joseé Travaso never had the opportunity to tell their own stories. Their lives ended during an internal struggle for power inside a violent criminal organization. A conflict built on loyalty, fear, and revenge.
What began as a dispute over leadership eventually escalated into two execution style murders, a capital murder conviction, years of appeals, and finally the execution of one of the organization’s alleged highest ranking leaders. In the end, no one truly won. Two men lost their lives in a gang power struggle.
Another man spent nearly 13 years on death row before the state of Texas carried out his sentence. It serves as a reminder that violence within organized crime rarely ends with a single act. It leaves behind grieving families, shattered lives, and consequences that can stretch across decades long after the gunfire has stopped.