In re Pers. Restraint of Davis
89590-2
| Wash. | May 18, 2017Background
- Cecil Emile Davis was convicted of aggravated first-degree murder (1997) and sentenced to death after a resentencing in 2007 following an earlier overturned death sentence.
- At sentencing, defense presented experts and family-history mitigation evidence; I.Q. scores in the record ranged from 68–82, but no expert formally diagnosed intellectual disability at trial.
- The trial judge separately found Davis not intellectually disabled and therefore eligible for the death penalty; the jury recommended death and the sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Davis filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) arguing: (1) Washington’s statutory scheme and its application violate the Eighth Amendment under Hall v. Florida; (2) Apprendi-related Sixth Amendment rights require a jury to find non‑disability beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present two aunts’ testimony and for not retaining toxicology/pharmacology experts.
- The court reviewed the record and collateral submissions, concluded Davis had not shown constitutional error or prejudice, and dismissed the PRP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment / Hall challenge to RCW 10.95.030(2) | RCW 10.95.030(2) and its I.Q. cutoff risk excluding relevant disability evidence (as in Hall), so statute or its application is unconstitutional as applied to Davis | The statute was not applied to prevent presentation of disability evidence here; Davis’s evidence was admitted and considered by jury and judge | Court: statute not unconstitutional as applied; Hall’s infirmities were not shown in Davis’s proceeding and he did not show entitlement to relief |
| Sixth Amendment / Apprendi claim (who must find disability) | Once intellectual disability is raised, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is NOT intellectually disabled; Apprendi requires jury finding of facts increasing punishment | Atkins/Hall are Eighth Amendment protections and do not convert non‑disability into an Apprendi sentence enhancer; states may choose enforcement procedures; Schriro supports state discretion | Court: rejected collapse of Atkins/Hall into Apprendi; no federal constitutional right to jury determination beyond reasonable doubt here |
| Ineffective assistance — excluded aunts' testimony | Counsel was deficient for not securing admissible forms of the aunts’ mitigating testimony and for late investigator contact; omission prejudiced sentencing | Trial court excluded videos as hearsay/duplicative and relevant material was presented through other witnesses; counsel presented other mitigation; any failure speculative | Court: no deficient performance shown and, even assuming deficiency, no prejudice established — exclusion was largely cumulative and speculative |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to retain toxicologist/pharmacologist | Counsel should have retained experts to evaluate drug/medication/diabetes interactions that could affect intellectual functioning and mitigation | Defense retained four qualified mental‑health experts who reviewed records (including prior evaluations noting diabetes/drug effects); no showing what a missing expert would have added | Court: counsel’s investigation and experts were reasonable; petitioner produced no proffer/declaration of what missing experts would have said, so prejudice is speculative; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of persons with intellectual disability)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (state procedures that foreclose consideration of relevant clinical evidence of intellectual disability can violate the Eighth Amendment)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing prescribed penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find facts that increase maximum authorized punishment in capital cases)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Apprendi/Ring principles applied to strike Florida’s scheme where judge made the critical findings required for death)
- Schriro v. Smith, 546 U.S. 6 (2005) (federal courts caution against imposing a jury trial requirement for Atkins findings where states retain procedure-making authority)
- State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287 (Wash. 2012) (direct‑appeal opinion summarizing trial evidence, findings, and prior procedural history)