Bowling v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 76
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Bowling challenged two 22-year-old death sentences as mentally retarded after Atkins; Kentucky statute prohibits execution of seriously mentally retarded offenders.
- Bowling IV (2005 Ky. Supreme Court) held Bowling defaulted by not raising MR claim at trial/direct appeal and rejected adequate cause; concluded no prima facie MR and law-of-the-case applied to preclude relief.
- IQ scores near trial were 86 and 87; a 79 score from 1967 was discussed but did not establish MR under Bowling IV’s framework.
- In 2007, AAMR revised guidelines to consider Flynn, practice, and margin of error effects; Bowling filed a declaratory-judgment petition to interpret statutes under the new guidelines.
- Circuit court dismissed as impermissible collateral attack on Bowling IV; Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed on procedural-default grounds and updated the analysis to include the practice effect, concluding no MR; declined advisory merits opinion.
- Concluding, the petition was dismissed and the death sentences stood; the court did not issue an advisory opinion on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default on MR claim is law of the case | Bowling argues not waived and seeks merits | Bowling IV controls; default remains | Yes, it is the law of the case that Bowling defaulted |
| Adequate cause for default exists? | Yes, new guidelines and changes constitute cause | No adequate cause; default stands | No adequate cause; default remains law of the case |
| Actual innocence/miscarriage of justice exception applies? | Exception could permit review if MR proven | Not met under Flynn/MOE/ Bowling IV | Does not apply; no prima facie MR shown after de novo analysis |
| Do AAMR guideline changes and practice effect alter Bowling IV result? | Yes, application would show MR | No, results unchanged | No, adjusted analysis does not change outcome; MR not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) ( Engaged prohibition on executing mentally retarded)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 224 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2006) (procedural default; MR claim not viable)
- Bowling IV, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005) (law-of-the-case; Flynn/margin effects discussed)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (actual innocence/fundamental miscarriage of justice)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (cause/prejudice exception to procedural default)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577 (Ky. 2010) (law of the case; finality)
- Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982) (law-of-the-case doctrine)