938 F.3d 200
5th Cir.2019Background
- Mark Anthony Soliz was convicted of capital murder in Texas (2012) and sentenced to death; Texas courts and this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Soliz’s initial state habeas (filed 2014) did not assert an Atkins claim but argued Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) should be treated like intellectual disability under Atkins; state habeas relief was denied.
- Soliz’s first federal habeas (filed 2015) was denied; the district court granted a COA only on the Atkins/FASD issue; this Court affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Soliz later filed successive state and federal pleadings reasserting an Atkins/FASD theory, relying on updated diagnostic guidance (DSM-5) and recent Fifth Circuit decisions (Cathey, Johnson) to argue the claim is newly available; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the successive state application as an abuse of the writ.
- Soliz moved in the Fifth Circuit for authorization to file a successive §2244 application and for a stay of execution; the Fifth Circuit concluded Soliz’s claim was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Soliz’s Atkins/FASD claim was "presented in a prior application" so §2244(b)(1) bars it | Soliz: the current claim is materially new due to DSM-5 changes and a recent IQ score | Texas: Soliz repeatedly raised the same FASD/Atkins theory previously; claim is not new | Court: Claim is previously presented and barred under §2244(b)(1) |
| Whether the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law previously unavailable (i.e., retroactivity/new medical standards) | Soliz: DSM-5 and recent precedents (Cathey/Johnson) make Atkins newly available to him | Texas: DSM-5 and Cathey were available before Soliz’s earlier filings; no newly available rule | Court: No new, previously unavailable rule; Soliz could have pressed this theory earlier, so §2244(b)(2) does not save the claim |
| Whether a stay of execution should issue | Soliz: stay necessary to adjudicate successive habeas claim | Texas: execution should proceed; no authorization for successive filing | Court: Denied stay of execution |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (establishes Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (courts must rely on current medical standards, not outdated stereotypes, when assessing intellectual disability)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (claims presented in prior federal habeas petitions must be dismissed)
- In re Cathey, 857 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2017) (discusses application of Atkins in light of evolving diagnostic standards)
- In re Morris, 328 F.3d 739 (5th Cir. 2003) (prima facie standard for successive-habeas authorization)
- Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (explains prima facie showing standard quoted by Fifth Circuit)
- Soliz v. Davis, [citation="750 F. App'x 282"] (5th Cir. 2018) (this Court’s prior adjudication of Soliz’s federal habeas claims)
- Soliz v. State, 432 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (state-court decision affirming conviction and sentence)