999 F.3d 609
8th Cir.2021Background
- Andrew Sasser was convicted and sentenced to death in Arkansas for the 1993 murder of Jo Ann Kennedy; the jury found a prior violent felony aggravator at sentencing.
- Sasser pursued state postconviction relief (Rule 37) and then federal habeas; this court previously affirmed most claims but remanded for further proceedings on four ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims and an Atkins (intellectual-disability) claim. See Sasser v. Hobbs.
- On remand the district court rejected the Atkins claim but granted relief on two ineffective-assistance claims (failure to obtain a timely psychological evaluation and failure to meaningfully consult a mental-health professional), excusing procedural default under Trevino v. Thaler.
- The State appealed the grant of ineffective-assistance relief and Sasser appealed the denial of Atkins relief; the panel reviewed whether the Rule 37 filings had fairly presented the federal claims and whether Sasser proved intellectual disability under DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 standards.
- The Eighth Circuit held the district court erred in granting relief on the ineffective-assistance claims (they were either fairly presented in state court or constituted an unauthorized successive habeas), and affirmed the denial of Atkins relief, directing dismissal of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sasser) | Defendant's Argument (State/Hobbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural default of two ineffective-assistance claims could be excused under Trevino because of ineffective state postconviction counsel | Postconviction counsel failed to raise/develop these claims, so Trevino permits federal evidentiary hearing and excusal of default | Claims were fairly presented in the Rule 37 petition and then abandoned on appeal, so defaults are not excused | Defaults not excused; claims were fairly presented in Rule 37 and thus barred from federal review |
| Whether the district court could consider new or recharacterized ineffective-assistance claims on remand | New characterizations were within scope of remand and could be developed at evidentiary hearing | The recharacterized/new claims first appeared in a later amended petition and are a second or successive habeas abuse of the writ | The district court improperly entertained new/recharacterized claims; those claims are second/successive and barred |
| Whether Sasser is ineligible for execution under Atkins (intellectual disability) applying DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 | Sasser met DSM criteria (subaverage IQ, adaptive deficits manifesting before 18) and is exempt from death under the Eighth Amendment | Evidence (IQ ranges, school/work/social history, testing) does not show significant adaptive deficits or subaverage functioning meeting DSM criteria | Affirmed: Sasser failed to prove intellectual disability under either DSM framework; Atkins claim denied |
| Whether the district court erred in its use of medical standards and kinds of evidence (DSM version, lay testimony, prison behavior, balancing strengths/weaknesses) | Court relied on non-clinical/layered evidence, lay stereotypes, and improperly offset deficits with unrelated strengths | Court considered both DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5, properly weighed expert and lay evidence, and limited reliance on prison performance | Affirmed: court lawfully used the medical frameworks and evidence; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (establishes Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (ineffective state postconviction counsel can excuse procedural default in federal habeas)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (courts must be informed by prevailing medical standards when adjudicating Atkins claims)
- Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (per curiam) (rejecting lay stereotypes in intellectual-disability determinations)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (IQ scores are not sole dispositive measure for intellectual disability)
- Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833 (prior Eighth Circuit decision remanding limited issues including Atkins and certain IATC claims)
- Sasser v. Norris, 553 F.3d 1121 (prior Eighth Circuit ruling on scope of claims after remand; addressed successive-petition abuse)
- Jackson v. Norris, 615 F.3d 959 (defines DSM-IV-TR adaptive-functioning analysis in this circuit)
- Jackson v. Kelley, 898 F.3d 859 (discusses weighing strengths and limitations in adaptive-function analysis)
- Arnold v. Dormire, 675 F.3d 1082 (procedural-default principles in ineffective-assistance contexts)
- Thomas v. Payne, 960 F.3d 465 (procedural-default and fair-presentation principles in §2254 review)