Arbelaez v. Florida Department of Corrections
662 F. App'x 713
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Guillermo Arbelaez kidnapped and murdered a 5-year-old boy to retaliate against the child’s mother; he gave multiple inculpatory confessions and was convicted of kidnapping and first-degree murder.
- Jury recommended death 11–1; trial court found three statutory aggravators (CCP, HAC, and during kidnapping), one statutory mitigator (no significant prior criminal history), and one nonstatutory mitigator (remorse).
- Postconviction proceedings raised (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate/present comprehensive mitigation (mental-health, epilepsy, family history), and (2) claim that Arbelaez is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution under Atkins.
- State evidentiary hearings produced competing expert testimony: defense experts diagnosed intellectual disability, epilepsy, organic brain damage, and retrospective adaptive deficits; State and court-appointed experts concluded no intellectual disability and found adequate concurrent adaptive functioning.
- Florida courts denied relief on both claims; Arbelaez then sought federal habeas relief. The district court denied habeas; Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the ineffective-assistance claim de novo and the intellectual-disability claim under AEDPA deferential review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present mitigation | Trial counsel failed to develop and present evidence of epilepsy, organic brain damage, low intellectual functioning, depression, suicide attempts, and abusive childhood; this deprived Arbelaez of a fair penalty-phase and likely changed the jury’s recommendation. | Counsel’s omissions, even if deficient, did not prejudice Arbelaez because the new mitigation would not overcome powerful aggravators (CCP, HAC) and multiple detailed confessions. | No prejudice under Strickland; habeas relief denied. |
| Intellectual disability (Atkins) — adaptive-functioning requirement | Arbelaez argued he met intellectual-disability criteria (low IQ and adaptive deficits manifested pre-18) and that Florida’s assessment and the Florida Supreme Court’s factual findings were unreasonable (experts’ retrospective evidence and ABAS should have been credited). | State argued Florida reasonably credited experts who assessed concurrent adaptive functioning and rejected defense retrospective measures; Florida’s rule requiring concurrent adaptive deficits is lawful and applied reasonably. | Under AEDPA, Florida Supreme Court reasonably applied law and facts; Arbelaez is not intellectually disabled for Atkins purposes; habeas relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong ineffective-assistance test of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (limits on rigid IQ cutoffs and requirement to consider standard clinical measures in intellectual-disability determinations)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (explains AEDPA deference and "unreasonable application" standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence in capital sentencing)