John Wayne Conner v. GDCP Warden
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6103
11th Cir.2015Background
- Conner, a Georgia death-row inmate, challenges the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition in a second appeal.
- In his first appeal, this court granted a COA on three claims: intellectual disability procedural default, penalty-phase IAC, and prosecutorial misconduct; we remanded for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the disability claim.
- On remand, the district court allowed extensive discovery and held an evidentiary hearing with seven experts; it ultimately denied the intellectual-disability claim on the merits.
- The district court also denied the penalty-phase IAC and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, but granted a COA on two related questions; this court expanded the COA and then affirmed, upholding the denials.
- Georgia law defines intellectual disability via three elements under OCGA § 17-7-131(a)(3); the district court applied these standards with the aid of experts, weighing IQ scores (Flynn effect and minor errors) and adaptive deficits.
- The district court found Conner not intellectually disabled and not manifestly during the developmental period; this court reviews those factual findings for clear error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disability finding was clearly erroneous | Conner argues district court erred in applying Georgia law to find no significant adaptive deficits and no developmental-onset impairment. | District court properly applied OCGA § 17-7-131(a)(3) and weighed expert testimony under a preponderance standard. | Not clearly erroneous; affirmed district court. |
| Penalty-phase ineffective assistance prejudice | Conner argues trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting mitigating evidence given his waiver; prejudice shown under Gilreath v. Head. | Conner instructed counsel not to present mitigating evidence; no reasonable probability that presentation would have changed the outcome. | Denied; no prejudice shown; affirmed. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct on closing arguments | Prosecutor's remarks referencing personal experience and past practices were improper and prejudicial. | State court deemed arguments improper but not conclusively unconstitutional; the totality of circumstances did not render sentencing fundamentally unfair. | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; affirmed. |
| AEDPA deference and standard of review | Request de novo review where state court did not adjudicate the disability claim on the merits. | District court's governing standard and factual findings were appropriate under AEDPA; decision sustained under deference or de novo review as appropriate. | Affirmed under reasoning applicable to the disability and related claims; BAG of review upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of intellectually disabled; statutory definitions align with clinical standards)
- Hall v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (intellectual-disability standards; deference to district court findings)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (S. Ct. 2014) (retroactivity and standards for intellectual disability determinations)
- Gates v. Zant, 863 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1989) (prosecutorial arguments and due-process considerations in sentencing)
- Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1985) (prosecutorial arguments and sentencing fair process; prosecutor’s role)
- Land v. Allen, 573 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial-misconduct evaluation and due-process framework)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (ineffective assistance; mitigation evidence; standard of prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (prejudice from failure to investigate mitigation; role of counsel)
- Gilreath v. Head, 234 F.3d 547 (11th Cir. 2000) (two-prong prejudice test when defendant instructs counsel not to present mitigation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Landrigan v. Mullin, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (prejudice prong clarified in mitigation context)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (S. Ct. 2009) (deference and de novo review interplay in habeas context)
- Kirby v. Gates, N/A (N/A) (See cited Gates framework for prosecutorial argument context)