In Re Turner
637 F.3d 1200
11th Cir.2011Background
- Turner's 1985 Florida murder convictions: life for wife, death for Brown; two victims, one defendant.
- Turner was 39 at the time; had a stable history, education, and employment; no explicit Atkins claim in his original federal petition.
- Turner exhausted state court remedies previously, with Atkins claim later raised in state court after 2002 procedural events.
- 2002 Atkins decision by Supreme Court held execution of mentally retarded individuals unconstitutional.
- District Court dismissed Turner's §2254 petition without prejudice to an Atkins claim after exhaustion and §2244(b)(3) authorization.
- Eleventh Circuit previously addressed Turner’s requests and deferred Atkins issue due to pending state proceedings and procedural rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turner may file a second or successive petition under §2244(b)(3)(A) | Turner seeks authorization to raise Atkins claim | §2244(b)(3) requires prima facie showing and new-law basis | Yes, but must show prima facie merit and new-rule basis |
| Whether Atkins claim is based on a new retroactive rule under §2244(b)(2)(A) | Atkins rule retroactively applicable to collateral review | Rule must be new and retroactive | Yes, Atkins is a new, retroactive rule for collateral review |
| Whether Turner shows a reasonable likelihood of mental retardation under Florida standards | Evidence supports subaverage functioning and adaptive deficits | Record shows IQ scores 98 and 108; no significant deficits | Not shown; no reasonable likelihood of mental retardation |
| Whether Florida's definitions of mental retardation apply to pre-2001 death sentences | Rule 3.203 mirrors Atkins definitions | §921.137 does not apply to Turner (pre-2001 sentence) | Florida statute inapplicable to Turner; Rule 3.203 used for analysis |
| Whether Turner has satisfied §2244(b)(3)(C) prima facie showing to file a second petition | There is merit to Atkins claim | Record does not demonstrate substantial likelihood of retardation | No; fails to make prima facie showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (execution of mentally retarded unconstitutional; new rule, retroactive to collateral review)
- In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (new Atkins rule; retroactive to collateral review)
- Hicks v. State, 375 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2004) (context for mental retardation and IQ evidence; not retardation)
- Phillips v. State, 984 So.2d 503 (Fla.2008) (Florida 70 IQ cutoff; prong interpretation)
- Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirmed denial; Atkins claim handled separately in state court)