299 So.3d 1013
Fla.2020Background
- Phillips was convicted and resentenced to death for a 1982 murder; his convictions and direct appeals were resolved by the late 1990s and 2000s, and his 2006 evidentiary hearing (affirmed in 2008) found he failed to prove intellectual disability under Florida’s three-prong statutory test.
- Florida law requires proof of (1) significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, (2) concurrent adaptive deficits, and (3) onset before age 18; Florida previously read an IQ cutoff of 70 as dispositive for prong (1).
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Hall v. Florida held courts must account for an IQ test’s standard error of measurement (±5 points) and allow defendants with scores within that margin to present additional evidence (e.g., adaptive deficits).
- Phillips filed a successive 2018 3.851 motion seeking reconsideration under Hall, Walls (this Court’s prior decision holding Hall retroactive), and Moore v. Texas; the circuit court reviewed the cold record, found prongs (1) and (3) met under Hall but upheld the prior finding that prong (2) (adaptive deficits) was not established and denied relief.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of relief and receded from Walls, holding Hall is a procedural, not retroactive, rule for collateral review and rejecting Phillips’s Moore argument as unnecessary because he failed to establish any one required prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Hall under Florida retroactivity test (Witt) | Hall is constitutional and Walls correctly held Hall retroactive; Phillips entitled to relief under Walls | Hall is an evolutionary/procedural refinement, not a development of "fundamental significance"; Walls was wrongly decided | Court receded from Walls and held Hall does not apply retroactively under Witt |
| Whether Hall entitles Phillips to a new determination of intellectual-functioning prong (IQ/SEM) | Phillips’ IQ scores (70, 74, 75) fall within SEM ±5 and thus entitle him to present additional evidence and obtain reconsideration | Prior adjudication stands; Hall not retroactive so Phillips gets no relief on prong (1) | Court affirmed denial; Hall’s SEM rule does not entitle Phillips to collateral relief because it is not retroactive |
| Whether Moore requires remand/reconsideration of adaptive-deficits prong | Moore mandates a holistic approach and forbids reliance on adaptive strengths; Phillips seeks renewed assessment of prong (2) | Even if Moore applied, Phillips fails to establish prong (1) so reconsideration of prong (2) is moot | Court declined to reach Moore claim as Phillips cannot satisfy the three-prong test absent prong (1) |
| Federal retroactivity (Teague/Montgomery) | Federal retroactivity principles require applying Hall as a federal constitutional rule | Hall announced a procedural rule (manner of determining culpability), not a new substantive rule, so federal law does not require retroactivity | Court held Hall procedural; Montgomery/Teague do not compel retroactive application |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the intellectually disabled)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (courts must account for IQ test SEM and allow additional evidence when score falls within margin)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (sentencing courts must follow current clinical standards and a holistic analysis when assessing intellectual disability)
- Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016) (this Court previously held Hall retroactive; receded from in this opinion)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (Florida retroactivity framework for collateral review)
- Cherry v. State, 959 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2007) (Florida had required IQ of 70 or below to satisfy prong (1))
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (state courts must give retroactive effect to new substantive rules of federal constitutional law)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework distinguishing substantive and procedural rules)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinction between procedural rules and substantive rules affecting retroactivity)
- Phillips v. State, 984 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2008) (prior affirmance that Phillips failed to prove intellectual disability)